Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is pushing back against President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive order declaring a “national energy emergency,” arguing the move is being used to fast-track fossil fuel projects without proper environmental review.
Nessel joined attorneys general from 14 other states in filing a federal lawsuit Friday in Washington state that aims to block the order. The lawsuit claims Trump’s directive lacks legal grounding and is an abuse of presidential power designed to benefit oil and gas interests.
One of the projects at the center of the dispute is the proposed Line 5 pipeline tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac, a project backed by Canadian energy company Enbridge. The plan has drawn intense scrutiny, especially as federal agencies move forward with environmental reviews under the emergency order’s shortened timeline.
According to the complaint, the emergency declaration bypasses environmental regulations designed to protect water resources, endangered species, and historically significant sites. In the past, these kinds of fast-tracked procedures were only used in true disasters such as hurricanes, floods, or oil spills, not as part of a new administration’s energy policy.
“This is not a real emergency. It’s a political maneuver,” Nessel said in a statement. “President Trump is once again using the levers of government to reward Big Oil donors at the expense of the environment and the people of Michigan.”
A Coalition of States Pushes Back
The attorneys general of California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and several other states joined the lawsuit, which names President Trump, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and senior Army officials as defendants.
The lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of misusing emergency powers to greenlight coal, oil, and gas projects, while ignoring lower-cost, cleaner alternatives like wind and solar. The complaint argues that there is no actual energy shortage and that the U.S. has been a net exporter of energy since 2019.
Federal law allows emergency permitting under specific circumstances, the lawsuit states, but the president’s order distorts that framework by treating a policy disagreement as a crisis.
“The president cannot fabricate an emergency to bypass laws that protect clean water, public lands, and endangered species,” the lawsuit says.
A Clash Over Line 5
The Line 5 tunnel project is among dozens of initiatives caught up in the debate. Enbridge wants to bury a new section of pipeline beneath the lakebed of the Straits of Mackinac, replacing the current exposed twin pipelines that date back to the 1950s.
The Army Corps of Engineers announced it would release a draft environmental impact statement by June, months ahead of the original schedule. That has raised concerns among Michigan tribes, who recently withdrew from the review process in protest of the sped-up timeline.
Republican leaders and Enbridge supporters say the tunnel is essential to maintaining fuel supplies in the Midwest and preventing leaks from the aging pipeline that currently sits on the lakebed.
Critics, including Nessel, argue the tunnel project would lock in decades more fossil fuel use and carries risk of catastrophic spills or accidents during construction. They also warn that the permitting process has cut corners under Trump’s emergency order, putting both ecological and legal safeguards at risk.
Nessel is also locked in separate litigation with Enbridge over Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s 2020 order to shut down Line 5. Her office argues the 1953 easement allowing the pipeline to cross the Straits was never valid and that the pipeline violates Michigan’s environmental laws and public trust protections.
A ruling in that case is still pending from a judge in Ingham County.
The White House Responds
The Trump administration has defended the energy emergency declaration as both legal and necessary. A White House spokesperson issued a statement Monday saying the president has broad authority to determine what constitutes a national emergency.
“President Trump recognizes that unleashing American energy is crucial to both our economic and national security,” the statement read.
So far, the administration has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit in court.
Environmental and Legal Implications
The legal challenge raises broader questions about executive power, environmental oversight, and the future of U.S. energy policy. Environmental groups have warned that weakening federal permitting rules could open the floodgates for pipeline expansions, drilling projects, and industrial development on public lands and waterways.
The lawsuit specifically calls out the administration for moving ahead with projects that involve dredging and filling in protected waters, and for bypassing required consultations under laws like the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act.
Opponents say it is a dangerous precedent that puts profits ahead of the environment.
“This is about ensuring that the federal government follows its own rules,” Nessel said. “The laws exist to protect people, wildlife, and the places we all value, not to be steamrolled by political favors.”
What Comes Next
The legal battle could stretch on for months and may eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, depending on how lower courts rule on the president’s authority.
In the meantime, projects like Line 5 remain in legal limbo, and states are left to decide whether they’ll cooperate with the federal government under a process they view as flawed.
The lawsuit marks one of the most direct legal confrontations so far between Democratic-led states and the Trump administration during his second term. It also signals that environmental policy, and who gets to shape it, remains a high-stakes fight across the country.
