Anti-Line 5 graffiti at Enbridge’s pumping station in Mackinaw City, Mich. (Laina G. Stebbins | Michigan Advance)

Canadian energy company Enbridge’s Line 5 traverses an extremely sensitive ecological area across northern Wisconsin, 400 rivers and streams as well as a myriad of wetlands, in addition to a path under the Mackinac Straights between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, all the while skirting the southern shore of Lake Superior. Such close proximity to the Great Lakes, lakes that hold over 20% of the world’s fresh surface water, lakes that supply drinking water to nearly 40 million people, yes, that does indeed make Line 5 a ticking time bomb.

Northern Wisconsin is also a very culturally sensitive area, home to the Bad River Reservation. The Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa were guaranteed rights to their lands by an 1854 treaty with the U.S. government. The easements for Line 5 across the reservation, granted to Enbridge by the Chippewa, expired in 2013 and the Bad River Band chose not to renew them. Enbridge continues to operate the line, illegally and in direct violation of the Bad River Band’s right to sovereignty over their land.

The Bad River Band has a guaranteed legal right to their land. They also have a right to Food Sovereignty, the internationally recognized right of food providers to have control over their land, seeds and water while rejecting the privatization of natural resources. Line 5 clearly impinges on the Band’s right to hunt, fish, harvest wild rice, to farm and have access to safe drinking water.

A federal court ruled that Enbridge has been trespassing on lands of the Bad River Band since 2013 and ordered the company to cease operations of Line 5 by June of 2026 (seems that immediate cessation would make more sense), but rather than shut down the aging line, Enbridge plans to build a diversion around the Bad River Reservation. They plan to move the pipeline out of the Bad River Band’s front yard into their back yard, leaving 100% of the threats to people and the environment in place.

Liquid petroleum (crude oil, natural gas and petroleum product) pipelines are big business in the U.S. With 2.6 million miles of oil and gas pipelines, the U.S. network is the largest in the world. If we continue our heavy and growing dependence on liquid fossil fuels, we must realize that we will continue to negatively impact the climate and the lives of everyone on the planet. 

Instead of moving to a just transition away from fossil fuels, liquid or otherwise, the government continues to subsidize the industry through direct payments and tax breaks, refusing to acknowledge the cost of pollution-related health problems and environmental damage, a cost which is of course, incalculable. 

There are nearly 20,000 miles of pipelines planned or currently under construction in the U.S., thus it would appear that government and private industry are in no hurry to break that addiction, much less make a just transition. While no previous administration was in any hurry to break with the fossil fuel industry, they at least gave the illusion of championing a transition to cleaner energy. 

The current administration is abundantly clear. Their strategy is having no strategy. They don’t like wind and solar and they plan to end any support for renewable energy. They don’t care if they upend global markets, banking, energy companies or certainly any efforts to help developing countries transition away from fossil fuels.

Pipelines are everywhere across the U.S., a spiderweb connecting wells, refineries, transportation and distribution centers. The vast majority of pipelines are buried and many, if not all, at some point cross streams, rivers, lakes and run over aquifers. Pipeline ruptures and other assorted failures will continue and spillage will find its way into the bodies of water they skirt around or pass under. It’s not a question if they will leak, but when.

Enbridge controls the largest network of petroleum pipelines in the Great Lakes states, and they are hardly immune to spills. Between 1999 and 2013 it was reported that Enbridge had over 1,000 spills dumping a reported 7.4 million gallons of oil.

In 2010  Enbridge’s Line 6B ruptured and contaminated the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history. Over 1.2 million gallons of oil were recovered from the river between 2010 and 2014. How much went downstream or was buried in sediment, we’ll never know.

In 2024 a fault in Enbridge Line 6 caused a spill of 70 thousand gallons near Cambridge Wisconsin. And Enbridge’s most infamous pipeline, the 71-year-old Line 5 from Superior Wisconsin to Sarnia Ontario, has had 29 spills in the last 50 years, loosing over 1 million gallons of oil.

Some consider Line 5 to be a “public good” because, as Enbridge argues, shutting the line down will shut down the U.S. economy and people will not be able to afford to heat their homes — claims they have never supported with any evidence. A public good is one that everyone can use, that everyone can benefit from. A public good is not, as Enbridge apparently believes, a mechanism for corporate profit.

Line 5 is a privately owned property, existing only to generate profits for Enbridge. If it were a public good, Enbridge would certainly be giving more attention to the rights of the Bad River Band, the well-being of all the people who depend on the clean waters of the Great Lakes and to protecting the sensitive environment of northern Wisconsin and Michigan. They are not. Their trespassing, their disregard for the environment, their continuing legal efforts to protect their bottom line above all else, only points to their self-serving avarice.

The Bad River Band wants Enbridge out, and in their eyes it is not a case of “not in my back yard” they do not want Line 5 in anyone’s back yard. 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, May 15, 2025, will hear cases related to President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court justices on Thursday are set to hear oral arguments in three cases stemming from the Trump administration’s attempt to end the constitutional right of birthright citizenship — though the focus may be on the power of district court judges to issue orders with national effects.

It’s one of the first major legal fights of the Trump administration’s second term to reach the high court, and one of several immigration-related emergency requests to be considered.

The justices have before them three challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, from courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. Under birthright citizenship, all children born in the United States are considered citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status.

But the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to focus instead on whether lower court judges can issue nationwide injunctions, rather than the constitutionality of the executive order. Such injunctions affect everyone in the country and not just those involved in the case or living in the court’s district.

It is up to the court alone to decide, though, what it wants to consider, and justices could also wade into the birthright citizenship question.

If birthright citizenship were to be eliminated, more than a quarter of a million children born each year would not be granted U.S. citizenship, according to a new study by the think tank Migration Policy Institute.

It would effectively create a class of 2.7 million stateless people by 2045, according to the study.

The lawyers who will be making oral arguments in court are New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum and Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

In briefs, they argue that the Trump administration has not shown it will be harmed by the multiple district courts placing the executive order on hold.

On the core issue of birthright citizenship, in their briefs, they argue that the 14th Amendment “guarantees citizenship to all born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and cite Supreme Court cases that have upheld birthright citizenship to those born in the U.S.

Nine justices, three cases

The nine justices will hear arguments on whether lower courts erred in granting a nationwide pause on the policy that extended beyond the plaintiffs who initially filed the challenge.

Immigrant rights’ groups and several pregnant women in Maryland who are not U.S. citizens filed the case in Maryland; four states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon — filed the case in Washington state; and 18 Democratic state attorneys general filed the challenge in Massachusetts.

Those 18 states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who will argue on behalf of the Trump administration, has criticized the nationwide injunctions as impeding the executive branch’s authority. 

The Trump administration has contended that it’s unconstitutional for federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Instead, the Trump administration said, the injunctions should be limited to those who brought the challenges.

Wong Kim Ark case

On Trump’s Inauguration Day, he signed an executive order, which was originally planned to go into effect Feb. 19, that children born in the United States would not be automatically guaranteed citizenship if their parents were in the country without legal authorization or if they were on a temporary legal basis such as a work or student visa.

Birthright citizenship was adopted in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in 1868, following the Civil War, to establish citizenship for newly freed Black people. In 1857, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court initially denied citizenship to Black people, whether they were free or enslaved.

In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, when the justices ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that children born in the U.S. are citizens.

In that case, Ark was born in San Francisco, California, to parents who were citizens of the Republic of China, but had a temporary legal authority to be in the country, such as a visa.

When Ark left the U.S. for a trip to China, on his return his citizenship was not recognized and he was denied reentry due to the Chinese Exclusion Act— a racist law designed to restrict and limit nearly all immigration of Chinese nationals.

The high court eventually ruled that children born in the United States to parents who were not citizens automatically become citizens at birth.

In arguments in the lower courts on the current case, attorneys on behalf of the Trump administration argue that the Wong Kim Ark case was misinterpreted and pointed to a phrase in the 14th Amendment: “subject to the jurisdiction.”

The Trump administration contends that phrase means that birthright citizenship only applies to children born to parents who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. In their view, people in the U.S. without legal status or temporary legal status are “subject to the jurisdiction” of their country of origin.

Tribal sovereignty

Tribal law scholars have noted that the language pertaining to “jurisdiction of” stems from the idea of political alliance when it comes to tribal sovereignty.

It’s from another Supreme Court case involving the U.S. citizenship of American Indian citizens, which the Trump administration focuses on in its argument, citing Elk v. Wilkins in 1884.

In that case, the Supreme Court denied citizenship to John Elk, a Winnebago man living in Omaha, Nebraska, on the grounds that “Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states; but they were alien nations, distinct political communities.”

Torey Dolan, an assistant professor of law at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said the Trump administration’s reliance on Elk in its birthright citizenship executive order and the idea the political alliance of a parent would then transfer to a child is a misinterpretation.

“A lot of this reliance on Elk is really a distortion,” Dolan said. “I think the administration’s reliance is a stretch, at best, and a bastardization of the case, at worst.”

Dolan, an enrolled citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, said some Native Americans were excluded from citizenship in the 14th Amendment because during that time, Congress would specifically sign treaties with tribes and grant citizenship.

“That is consistent with a long history of Congress creating pathways to Indian citizenship,” she said.

After the justices hear arguments on Thursday, any decision is likely to come before the Supreme Court’s recess in early July.