Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Enbridge Energy Co.

2023 WL 4043961 (2023)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Enbridge Energy Co.

United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
2023 WL 4043961 (2023)

Facts

Enbridge Energy Co. (Enbridge) (defendant) operated a pipeline network that transported crude oil and natural-gas liquids from Western Canada to refineries in Eastern Canada and the United States. A portion of line 5 in the pipeline network ran across the Bad River Reservation, which was the home of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (Band) (plaintiff). As line 5 reached over 70 years in operation, the Band became increasingly concerned that its degraded condition would result in a rupture that would cause catastrophic environmental degradation by contaminating the Bad River watershed and Lake Superior. Additionally, Enbrige’s 20-year rights-of-way under 12 land parcels owned by the Band had expired in 2013, but Enbridge had continued operating the line across those land parcels. The Band sued Enbridge in federal district court, asserting claims for public nuisance and trespass. The public-nuisance claim sought an injunction preventing continued operation of line 5 across the Band’s land on the basis that the risk of the line’s failure constituted a public nuisance. The Band presented evidence that there was particular concern of a rupture where the pipeline ran under a meander of the Bad River. Environmental factors, including recent flooding and the resulting erosion, heightened the risk of a rupture. In response to the nuisance claim, Enbridge argued that there was no evidence that a rupture was imminent, negating a public-nuisance finding. Enbridge also touted the negative impacts of effectively closing line 5, claiming that it would have significant economic impacts for consumers who relied on the 23 million gallons of oil and natural-gas liquids that were transported through the line daily. The district court considered the parties’ arguments.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Conley, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership