A defendant can remove a case from state court to federal court for various reasons, but by statute they must do so within 30 days of the complaint (or sometimes from the date at which removability could be ascertained). Enbridge is an interesting civil procedure case in which the defendant sought to remove a case after the 30-day deadline. They contend that removal only became ascertainable after, in a parallel case, a federal district court order denied a motion to remand to the state court. The main question in this case is whether courts can apply equitable tolling—that is, can they look past the statutory deadline for equitable reasons?
The Sixth Circuit held that the defendant, Enbridge, had missed the deadline, and they were out of luck. Though the lower court acknowledged a general presumption that non-jurisdictional statutory deadlines are subject to equitable tolling, they thought that the presumption was rebutted by features in the statute (e.g., the clear 30-day language, and the presence of other statutory exceptions). Enbridge appealed to the Supreme Court. During argument, the Court re-hashed the same core considerations evaluated by the lower court.
The model predicts this will be a relatively close case—many justices overlap with the fifty percent mark—but leans towards reverse (about 2/3 probability). The model’s best prediction is a 5-4 vote, but again the dissents are not confidently predicted and it is possible this is a 9-0 reverse vote.