Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)

[rte66man]

The Morouns are playing with fire. What's to keep the Canadians from declaring the Ambassador Bridge a hazard and shutting down its access to Canada?

Something like this happened on the Oklahoma-Texas border once. It didn't end well for the owners of the toll bridge (not least because the governor of Oklahoma showed up in person, armed with a revolver).

Ah, Alfalfa Bill Murray always knew what would play best in the press and get him re-elected.

[vdeane]

The issue isn't whether a president "cares" about the law -- it's what legal authority actually exists.

...when a (super?)majority of both houses of Congress or a majority of SCOTUS justices choose to impose a check on Presidential authority.

If neither of those conditions exists, legal authority doesn't actually matter.

This.  The law is not a magic force field preventing people from breaking it (if it was, we wouldn't need police or courts).  Absent an external authority enforcing it, it's worth no more than the paper it's printed on.

[Beltway]

The issue isn't whether a president "cares" about the law -- it's what legal authority actually exists.

...when a (super?)majority of both houses of Congress or a majority of SCOTUS justices choose to impose a check on Presidential authority.
If neither of those conditions exists, legal authority doesn't actually matter.

This.  The law is not a magic force field preventing people from breaking it (if it was, we wouldn't need police or courts).  Absent an external authority enforcing it, it's worth no more than the paper it's printed on.

Relax.

The bridge will open in a month or two.

[oscar]

The issue isn't whether a president "cares" about the law -- it's what legal authority actually exists.

...when a (super?)majority of both houses of Congress or a majority of SCOTUS justices choose to impose a check on Presidential authority.

If neither of those conditions exists, legal authority doesn't actually matter.

This.  The law is not a magic force field preventing people from breaking it (if it was, we wouldn't need police or courts).  Absent an external authority enforcing it, it's worth no more than the paper it's printed on.

Even if the President doesn't back off, the Federal courts might step in, if asked to do so by one or both of the co-owners of the new bridge, the state of Michigan and the government of Canada. That state has had some success getting preliminary injunctions in Federal court against the current Federal administration.

[Scott5114]

The issue isn't whether a president "cares" about the law -- it's what legal authority actually exists.

...when a (super?)majority of both houses of Congress or a majority of SCOTUS justices choose to impose a check on Presidential authority.

If neither of those conditions exists, legal authority doesn't actually matter.

This.  The law is not a magic force field preventing people from breaking it (if it was, we wouldn't need police or courts).  Absent an external authority enforcing it, it's worth no more than the paper it's printed on.

Even if the President doesn't back off, the Federal courts might step in, if asked to do so by one or both of the co-owners of the new bridge, the state of Michigan and the government of Canada. That state has had some success getting preliminary injunctions in Federal court against the current Federal administration.

Would either of them have standing to sue? Whatever damages Michigan and Canada have sustained would be wholly theoretical since we have no idea how much traffic this bridge will actually carry.

[GaryV]

Would either of them have standing to sue? Whatever damages Michigan and Canada have sustained would be wholly theoretical since we have no idea how much traffic this bridge will actually carry.

If I promise to use the Gordie Howe whenever I go to Windsor, does that establish that they'd at least lose my $9 (or whatever the toll will be)?

The total damages might not be quantifiable, but I don't think they'd be negligible.

[MikeTheActuary]

Would either of them have standing to sue? Whatever damages Michigan and Canada have sustained would be wholly theoretical since we have no idea how much traffic this bridge will actually carry.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that the owner of the bridge and the State of Michigan would both have standing to sue.

The challenge is that federal courts have traditionally granted very broad latitude to the Executive Branch when it comes to border security and other national security considerations.  For a suit to be successful, the plaintiff(s) would have to prove that blocking the bridge is about something other than security. 

While there's certainly reason to be skeptical that "security" is the reason for delaying the bridge opening, any good Executive Branch attorney should be able to make enough of an argument to mount a successful defense for a while.

I doubt this will be necessary, however.  I suspect that the threats will be walked back fairly quickly, although there's still a chance that the current partial shutdown and fallout from it could still create a delay.

[oscar]

The issue isn't whether a president "cares" about the law -- it's what legal authority actually exists.

...when a (super?)majority of both houses of Congress or a majority of SCOTUS justices choose to impose a check on Presidential authority.

If neither of those conditions exists, legal authority doesn't actually matter.

This.  The law is not a magic force field preventing people from breaking it (if it was, we wouldn't need police or courts).  Absent an external authority enforcing it, it's worth no more than the paper it's printed on.

Even if the President doesn't back off, the Federal courts might step in, if asked to do so by one or both of the co-owners of the new bridge, the state of Michigan and the government of Canada. That state has had some success getting preliminary injunctions in Federal court against the current Federal administration.

Would either of them have standing to sue? Whatever damages Michigan and Canada have sustained would be wholly theoretical since we have no idea how much traffic this bridge will actually carry.

If they're seeking injunctive relief, they would have to show threatened injury, not damages, so any difficulty in projecting damages would not matter. And the injury need not be lost toll revenue, but could include injury to businesses on both sides of the border (such as auto manufacturers and suppliers) due to congestion at the existing Ambassador Bridge border crossing and disruption of cross-border supply chains.

The Canadian government might be reluctant to subject itself to the jurisdiction of a U.S. court. For example, when an independent counsel subpoenaed the Canadian government, the court set a hearing on its own motion about whether the subpoena should be quashed (voided), and invited the Canadian government to participate in the hearing if it wanted to. The Canadian government politely turned down the invitation, since it would be an affront to its sovereignty to participate in a U.S. legal proceeding. But it told the court that its friends in the U.S. State Department would attend the hearing, and present arguments to quash the subpoena.

The State Department would probably be no help here, but the state of Michigan has lately not been in the least bit shy about suing the Federal Government.

[Beltway]

The challenge is that federal courts have traditionally granted very broad latitude to the Executive Branch when it comes to border security and other national security considerations.  For a suit to be successful, the plaintiff(s) would have to prove that blocking the bridge is about something other than security.

Where all this falls apart -- why block one bridge when there are two other highway bridges, one highway tunnel, and one railroad tunnel between Michigan and Ontario?

What, block/close one and not block/close all?

If the justification is "border security," then shutting down only the Gordie Howe Bridge makes no logical or legal sense.

If the Executive Branch truly believed there was a credible, urgent national‑security threat requiring closure of a crossing, then every crossing with the same risk profile would have to be treated the same way.

None of it adds up.

[NWI_Irish96]

The challenge is that federal courts have traditionally granted very broad latitude to the Executive Branch when it comes to border security and other national security considerations.  For a suit to be successful, the plaintiff(s) would have to prove that blocking the bridge is about something other than security.

Where all this falls apart -- why block one bridge when there are two other highway bridges, one highway tunnel, and one railroad tunnel between Michigan and Ontario?

What, block/close one and not block/close all?

If the justification is "border security," then shutting down only the Gordie Howe Bridge makes no logical or legal sense.

If the Executive Branch truly believed there was a credible, urgent national‑security threat requiring closure of a crossing, then every crossing with the same risk profile would have to be treated the same way.

None of it adds up.

You've just described nearly every decision the executive branch has made in the last 13 months.

[Beltway]

The Canadian government might be reluctant to subject itself to the jurisdiction of a U.S. court.

Neither could they legally compel the U.S. to open or close an international bridge.

Both countries have to cooperate. If one opens and the other closes, no traffic on bridge.

[Beltway]

You've just describe nearly every decision the executive branch has made in the last 13 months.

Relax.

The bridge will open in a month or two.

They are saying "early 2026" which doesn't sound precise, but there are reasons.

Opening an international bridge is far more complex than finishing the structure and highways.

Both countries must fully staff and certify their ports of entry, test inspection systems, biometrics, radiation portals, and communications. The concessionaire must complete commissioning, load testing, cameras, sensors, and safety systems. Emergency services on both sides must verify access and response plans, and the bridge authority's units for police, fire, rescue, and EMS must be staffed and trained.

Multiple federal agencies must issue final operational approvals, and the opening has to be coordinated diplomatically because it's a binational project. That's why there's always a gap between construction completion and opening day.

[kphoger]

I was hoping that they would just end up doing information sharing with Canada like they did for logging entry/exit on that.  Controlling people exiting is a hallmark of tyrannical dictatorships.  What is this, East Germany?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'controlling people exiting'.  I've been driving from the USA to Mexico since 2009, and exiting this country has always been subject to the possibility of a CBP checkpoint north of the border bridge.  Especially before 2014 or so, it was more common than not to have to stop at such a checkpoint just north of the Colombia (NL) border crossing.  In 2020, there were also Mexican soldiers at the beginning of the border bridge in Ciudad Acuña (Coahuila), stopping vehicles and questioning the drivers on their way north to the USA (this was right when COVID was shutting everything down, and that particular soldier wanted to know why the gentleman in our back seat was wearing a face mask, but he was satisfied with our answer that he was embarrassed about not having his dentures in).

[PColumbus73]

You've just describe nearly every decision the executive branch has made in the last 13 months.

Relax.

Gordie Howe International Bridge: Relax, guys.

Francis Scott Key Bridge: I have emailed DOGE...

[MikeTheActuary]

The challenge is that federal courts have traditionally granted very broad latitude to the Executive Branch when it comes to border security and other national security considerations.  For a suit to be successful, the plaintiff(s) would have to prove that blocking the bridge is about something other than security.

Where all this falls apart -- why block one bridge when there are two other highway bridges, one highway tunnel, and one railroad tunnel between Michigan and Ontario?

What, block/close one and not block/close all?

If the justification is "border security," then shutting down only the Gordie Howe Bridge makes no logical or legal sense.

If the Executive Branch truly believed there was a credible, urgent national‑security threat requiring closure of a crossing, then every crossing with the same risk profile would have to be treated the same way.

None of it adds up.

I'll preface this by saying that I doubt that what I'm about to write will actually happen.

If, hypothetically, the administration were to block the bridge from opening until certain concessions were made, the administration could do one of two things:

1.  The administration could claim that those concessions are necessary for national security or foreign policy reasons.  It is probable that as long as the concessions weren't explicitly "pay off a political supporter of the administration for the losses they will incur from loss of toll revenue" a federal court would be obliged by precedent to defer to the administration's judgment and authority in the matter.

2.  The administration could deny that unsatisfied concessions were the actual reasons for blocking the bridge opening and instead take the approach of slow-walking its certification of the new port of entry, or claim insufficient staffing, or....  Declining to open an insufficiently staffed or unprepared port of entry would absolutely have the appearance of being a legitimate national security issue that affects only that crossing and not the other Detroit-area crossings.  It's probable that, absent clear and convincing evidence of corrupt motivations, a federal court would defer to the administration.

And I'll repeat my unfortunately-abbreviated disclaimer: IANAL.

[Beltway]

Logically -- not unless they close the other 4 crossings -- which won't happen -- so -- RELAX!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7Ti-EOcnUEE

[Beltway]

You've just describe nearly every decision the executive branch has made in the last 13 months.

Relax. Relax. Relax.

Gordie Howe International Bridge: Relax, guys.
Francis Scott Key Bridge: I have emailed DOGE...

One bridge is finishing binational commissioning.

The other is starting from zero after a collapse.

Different bridges, different universes.

[kphoger]

Gordie Howe International Bridge: Relax, guys.
Francis Scott Key Bridge: I have emailed DOGE...

One bridge is finishing binational commissioning.
The other is being replaced starting from zero after a collapse.

Edited for accuracy.

[MikeTheActuary]

Logically -- not unless they close the other 4 crossings

Even before events of the past year-and-change, it was a reality that transcended political affiliations that "logic" and "government" are two concepts that have, at best, only a very weak correlation.

In a past life, I filled the role of the absent-minded professor who was trotted out to various state legislatures by one of the insurance industry's trade associations.   It was...educational and explains much of my cynicism regarding politics.

[Scott5114]

S ✂️ N ✂️ I ✂️ P ✂️ P ✂️ I ✂️ N ✂️ G

[Max Rockatansky]

S ✂️ N ✂️ I ✂️ P ✂️ P ✂️ I ✂️ N ✂️ G

Relax.

It is just creative snipping. 

[Beltway]

Relax.
It is just creative snipping. 

Relax. Relax. Relax.

The bridge will open in the next month or so.

[Max Rockatansky]

Relax.
It is just creative snipping. 

Relax. Relax. Relax.

The bridge will open in the next month or so.

Relax

Stop being so impleasable.

[Bobby5280]

I have doubts the President will follow through on his threats to block traffic on the Gordie Howe Bridge when it opens. For one thing, Trump is actually sensitive to what happens with the stock market and treasury yields.

[Henry]

I have doubts the President will follow through on his threats to block traffic on the Gordie Howe Bridge when it opens. For one thing, Trump is actually sensitive to what happens with the stock market and treasury yields.

Nothing he does or says surprises me anymore. If he actually succeeds in blocking traffic from crossing the bridge, there'll be an even bigger uproar and rioting in the streets of Windsor and Detroit...but don't take my word for it.