AG Nessel Files State Reply to Enbridge Brief

The ruling handed down last week reversed an opinion from U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, who said federal courts didn't have jurisdiction to enforce a ruling from the Coeur d'Alene Tribal Court against non-tribal members, Boise State Public Radio reported. The appellate court disagreed.
By  | 

LANSING, MI (WILX) -- Saying that “… [Enbridge] repeatedly mischaracterizes the State Defendants’ arguments … [and] improperly attempt to re-write the title of Act 359, inventing a new, broader object ….” the State of Michigan today filed its reply brief to Enbridge’s August 1 brief in Enbridge Energy, v State of Michigan, according to a press release.

The case, which was originally filed in court of claims by Enbridge on June 6, involved the constitutionality of 2018 PA 359 and the creation of the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority.

The state argues that the statute creating the authority is unconstitutional because it violated the Title-Object clause, according to the press release.

First, the title did not provide fair notice to legislators and the public of substance of the bill. Second, it improperly combined two unrelated purposes: the Mackinac Bridge and a proposed “utility tunnel” meant to house a new Enbridge oil pipeline, the press release states.

The court will determine if it wants to hear oral arguments before making a decision.

A copy of the brief can be found here.

Copyright 2019 WILX. All rights reserved.