Company: ENBSF
Filing Date: 2025-05-09
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0000895728-25-000012
Chunk: 75

Company: ENBRIDGE INC
Filing Date: 2025-05-09
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 1
Chunk 75
---
 Officials’ motion to dismiss the Enbridge’s Complaint on sovereign immunity grounds.  

Oral argument was held on March 18, 2025, and a decision from the 6th Circuit is anticipated by the third quarter of 2025. 

DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE

We own an effective interest of 27.6% in the Bakken Pipeline System, which is inclusive of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe filed lawsuits in 2016 with the US Court for the District of Columbia (the District Court) contesting the lawfulness of the Army Corps easement for DAPL, including the adequacy of the Army Corps' environmental review and tribal consultation process. The Oglala Sioux and Yankton Sioux Tribes also filed lawsuits alleging similar claims in 2018.

On June 14, 2017, the District Court found the Army Corps' environmental review to be deficient and ordered the Army Corps to conduct further study concerning spill risks from DAPL.

On March 25, 2020, in response to amended complaints from the Tribes, the District Court found that the Army Corps' subsequent environmental review completed in August 2018 was also deficient and ordered the Army Corps to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address unresolved controversy pertaining to potential spill impacts resulting from DAPL. On July 6, 2020, the District Court issued an Order vacating the Army Corps' easement for DAPL and ordering that the pipeline be shut down by August 5, 2020. On that day, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed the District Court's July 6 order to shut down and empty the pipeline.

On January 26, 2021, the US Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the Army Corps is required to prepare an EIS and that the Army Corps' easement for DAPL is vacated. The US Supreme Court subsequently denied the request of Dakota Access, LLC to review the decision that an EIS is required. The US Court of Appeals also determined that, absent an injunction proceeding, the District Court could not order DAPL's operations to cease. While not an issue before, the US Court of Appeals also recognized that the Army Corps could consider whether to allow DAPL to continue to operate in the absence of an easement. The Army Corps earlier indicated that it did not intend to exercise