ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LP v. NESSEL

Send us Fan Mail Because §1446(b)(1)’s text, structure, and context are inconsistent with equitable tolling, Enbridge’s removal was untimely. Pp. 5–14. (a) The fact that the 30-day removal deadline in §1446(b)(1) is non jurisdictional does not automatically render it subject to equitable toll ing. While jurisdictional requirements “cannot be waived or forfeited” and “do not allow for equitable exceptions,” Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U. S. 199, 203, “[t]he mere fact that a time limit lacks jurisdic tional force . . . does not render it malleable in every respect,” Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 586 U. S. 188, 192. Some nonjurisdic tional rules remain “mandatory” and “are not susceptible” of equitable tolling. Ibid. The Court need not decide whether §1446(b)(1) qualifies as a statute of limitations subject to a presumption of equitable tolling

You can listen to ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LP v. NESSEL online on Radio and Podcast. Open the player on this page to stream the available audio.

ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LP v. NESSEL is an episode from Supreme Court decision syllabus (SCOTUS) by RJ Dieken.

This episode is 11:35 long.

This episode was published on Apr 26, 2026.

Yes. Use the heart button on the episode page to add it to your favorite episodes list.

Yes. This page shows related episodes from Supreme Court decision syllabus (SCOTUS) when more episodes are available from the podcast feed.