A U.S. court in Minnesota said it lacked authority in a challenge to moves by Enbribge Energy to expand shipments through its Alberta Clipper oil pipeline.

Enbridge secured the U.S. federal permit to build the pipeline from Canadian oil sands fields to refineries in the United States in 2009. Five years later, the company secured federal approval to double the capacity of the project from 450,000 barrels per day.

Environmental and aboriginal advocates filed a challenge, arguing the U.S. State Department, charged with vetting cross-border projects, gave the company a free pass by not requiring additional permits for the expansion.

The U.S. District Court in Minnesota ruled the federal order was not within its jurisdiction.

"Plaintiffs are not entitled to such relief as the challenged actions of the State Department are not subject to judicial review," the ruling stated.

The heavier grade of crude oil found in Canada is viewed as more of an environmental threat than other types of oil. A recent report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine finds the heavier oil has similar properties to other grades, but weathers differently when exposed to the environment. If spilled, it would sink in water and make remediation difficult.

Similar concerns surrounding the potential environmental risks associated with Canadian oil were in part used by the U.S. government to deny TransCanada's permit to build the cross-border Keystone XL oil pipeline.

The Sierra Club, one of the groups challenging the Enbridge project, said the matter now rests with President Barack Obama.

"When President Obama rejected the Keystone XL proposal last month, he showed that the era of big oil is over," campaign director Lena Moffitt said in a statement. "Now, just as he did with Keystone, President Obama can call for a full review of Enbridge's plans and ultimately reject a pipeline expansion that would do irreparable harm to our climate, our environment, and our public health."