Case Explained: FinalOpinion in case# 23-2467 episode artwork

EPISODE · Jul 30, 2026 · 1 MIN

Case Explained: FinalOpinion in case# 23-2467

from DIFTCL: Federal Narrative Summaries · host amf-wp

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Filed: 2026-07-30 The seventh-circuit affirmed that Enbridge Energy Company committed trespass by operating Line 5 across 12 parcels of land within the Bad River Reservation after its rights-of-way expired in 2013 without tribal consent or valid federal approval. The court rejected Enbridge’s arguments that a 1992 agreement obligated the Band to consent to renewed easements for these specific parcels and that the Administrative Procedure Act preserved the easements during pending renewal applications, holding that the applications were insufficient under applicable regulations because they lacked required tribal consent. Regarding remedies, the court affirmed that restitution and injunctive relief are appropriate for intentional trespass on Indian lands but vacated the district court’s specific awards due to calculation errors. The court found the district court abused its discretion by double-counting Enbridge’s profits and by improperly discounting the value of deferred reroute costs based on pipeline mileage. The court remanded these monetary and injunctive remedies for recalculation, instructing the district court to fashion an injunction that allows Enbridge a reasonable opportunity to complete its proposed reroute of Line 5 around the Reservation to avoid violating a U.S.-Canada Transit Treaty and disrupting energy supplies, while ensuring accountability for the eventual removal of the pipeline. Finally, the court reversed the district court’s judgment on the Band’s federal common law nuisance claim, holding that the Pipeline Safety Act displaced such claims. The court reasoned that the Act provides a comprehensive regulatory scheme administered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to address pipeline safety hazards, including erosion risks, thereby leaving no gap for federal common law to fill. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Episode metadata supplied by the publisher feed · Published Jul 30, 2026

Embed this episode

NOW PLAYING

Case Explained: FinalOpinion in case# 23-2467

0:00 1:40

No transcript for this episode yet

We transcribe on demand. Request one and we'll notify you when it's ready — usually under 10 minutes.

No similar episodes found.

No similar podcasts found.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long is this episode of DIFTCL: Federal Narrative Summaries?

This episode is 1 minute long.

When was this DIFTCL: Federal Narrative Summaries episode published?

This episode was published on July 30, 2026.

Can I download this DIFTCL: Federal Narrative Summaries episode?

Yes. Use the download control on the episode player to save the publisher-provided media file.
URL copied to clipboard!