- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- in United States
- with readers working within the Banking & Credit, Business & Consumer Services and Retail & Leisure industries
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Law Department Performance and Consumer Protection topic(s)
Greetings from Dykema's Appellate and Critical Motions Practice.
This month's edition of Last Month at the Supreme Court® features a set of cases that collectively illustrate the Court's continued engagement with foundational questions of federal jurisdiction, constitutional limits on state authority, and the scope of federal preemption. The Court is confronting issues that, while doctrinally distinct, share a common practical consequence. They will shape where cases are litigated, what remedies are available, and how far state and local governments may go in regulating economic activity and enforcing revenue measures:
- Whether district courts possess equitable authority to excuse the 30-day removal deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1);
- Whether the Takings Clause requires payment of fair market value following a tax foreclosure, and whether such practices may also implicate the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause;
- Whether federal law preempts state-law negligence claims against freight brokers; and
- Whether federal law preempts state tort claims seeking to impose liability on fossil fuel producers for alleged contributions to climate change.
As always, we present concise but analytically rigorous summaries designed to equip litigators, in-house counsel, and business leaders with practical insight into how these decisions may affect litigation strategy, regulatory exposure, and risk management across industries. The Court's decisions in these matters have the potential not only to clarify doctrine, but also to recalibrate the strategic landscape in which high-stakes disputes are litigated.
For additional information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Kyle Asher, Andrew VanEgmond, Monika Harris, Ryan VanOver, David Ter-Petrosyan, or Sadie Betting.
Enbridge Energy: Can Equitable Tolling Salvage a Defendant's Untimely Removal to Federal Court?
The Supreme Court heard argument in Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (No. 24-783), a case that presents a deceptively narrow procedural question with potentially significant consequences for federal jurisdiction: whether the 30-day deadline for removal set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) is subject to equitable tolling. The case arises from high-profile litigation brought by the Michigan Attorney General seeking to decommission Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline, but the Court's resolution is likely to reverberate far beyond the energy sector.
Supreme Court to Determine the Limits of State Powers in Tax Foreclosures
In Pung v. Isabella County (No. 25-95), the Supreme Court is considering whether the Takings Clause requires governments to compensate property owners based on the fair market value of their property following a tax foreclosure, rather than limiting compensation to the proceeds generated by the foreclosure sale. The case also asks whether the government's retention of the difference between the property's alleged fair market value and the amount realized at auction may implicate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The dispute arises from a foreclosure in which the property was sold for less than its asserted market value, raising questions about whether constitutionally "just compensation" turns on market value or the results of the auction-priced foreclosure process itself.
Supreme Court Weighs Whether Negligent Selection Claims Are Preempted By the FAAAA
On March 4, the Supreme Court heard argument in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport, II, a case that presents an important question at the intersection of federal preemption and state tort law: whether common-law negligent selection claims against freight brokers are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). The dispute centers on whether such claims impermissibly regulate a broker's core services—particularly the selection of motor carriers—or instead fall within the statute's safety savings clause preserving state authority over motor vehicle safety.
On March 2, 2026, in Mirabelli v. Bonta (No. 25A810), the Supreme Court blocked a California law that prohibited public school officials from disclosing a student's gender identity at school to their parents without the student's consent, even if the parents expressly asked for the information.
Notable Business Case the Court Granted Last Month.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
