Michigan Supreme Court justices Megan Cavanagh and Noah Hood accepted $5,000 each from the Jane Fonda Climate PAC weeks before joining a 6-1 decision that vacated state approval of Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline tunnel, raising fresh questions about judicial impartiality and political influence.
Six weeks before the Michigan Supreme Court threw out the state’s approval for Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel project, campaign finance records show that Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh and Justice Noah Hood each received $5,000 from Jane Fonda’s climate-focused PAC, according to reporting by the Daily Caller News Foundation. Both justices are running for full terms in November, and both were endorsed by JanePAC as well as the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, which cited their “strong commitment” to environmental causes.
On July 31, 2026, the state’s highest court issued a 6-1 ruling vacating the Michigan Public Service Commission’s approval of the Line 5 tunnel project, sending the case back to the Commission for further review. The ruling stalled a plan to replace the decades-old pipeline segment crossing the Straits of Mackinac with a new, concrete-lined tunnel carrying a single pipeline far below the lakebed, a project that had cleared regulatory hurdles in 2023 but faced fierce opposition from environmental activists and Democratic officials.
The timing and source of the campaign cash drew immediate scrutiny. Jane Fonda’s PAC, which is openly dedicated to defeating the fossil fuel industry, spent at least $81,000 in Michigan this election cycle, backing candidates and causes that align with its anti-oil agenda. The PAC’s founder, Jane Fonda, has a long history of environmental activism and has publicly denounced Line 5, including joining protests against similar pipeline projects in other states.
For many observers, the pattern looks familiar: left-wing interest groups targeting the courts with campaign donations and endorsements just before high-stakes rulings, a scenario that has become a central battleground in today’s judicial ethics debates. As recent controversies around Supreme Court justices’ family ties and outside funding have shown, the appearance of impropriety can be as damaging as any actual conflict. See, for example, the recent attention to Justice Alito’s career plans and speculation about judicial independence.
The Line 5 project, operated by Canadian energy giant Enbridge, has long been a flashpoint in the Midwest energy debate. The 645-mile pipeline moves up to 540,000 barrels of oil and natural gas liquids per day, with a four-mile segment running across the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac between Lakes Michigan and Huron. Environmental groups and progressive state officials, including Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel, have targeted the pipeline for shutdown, citing environmental risks and past oil spills.
After years of legal and political wrangling, the Michigan Public Service Commission in 2023 approved Enbridge’s plan to replace the exposed lakebed pipelines with a new, 30-inch line housed inside a deep tunnel beneath the straits. The tunnel would run 60 to 370 feet below the lakebed in reinforced concrete, a design Enbridge argued would sharply reduce the risk of leaks or anchor strikes, like the 2018 incident that left three dents in the old pipeline. Yet, that was not enough to satisfy environmental activists or many Democratic leaders. Attorney General Nessel sued Enbridge in 2019, calling the pipeline an “unacceptable risk to the Great Lakes.” Governor Whitmer’s administration tried to revoke the pipeline easement in 2020, and Jane Fonda herself joined the anti-pipeline movement.
JanePAC, the political action committee founded by Fonda, has made its mission clear: defeat the fossil fuel industry by targeting its political and judicial supporters. The PAC’s spending in Michigan this cycle included $12,500 to Democratic attorney general nominee Eli Savit, $5,000 each to state legislative candidates Natalie Price, Jaime Churches, and Will Lawrence, and the $5,000 donations to Justices Cavanagh and Hood. Jaime Churches, a House candidate, openly praised the PAC’s priorities, saying in a statement, “I am grateful for the support of Jane Fonda Climate PAC for investing in candidates and campaigns based on shared priorities.” She added, “My campaign is focused on making sure working families can afford to live, work, and raise their families in Michigan,” and cited energy policy as one of her focus areas.
For government transparency advocates, the situation is troubling. Jason Torchinsky, attorney for the Patriots Foundation, described JanePAC’s playbook as “one more tool the anti-energy left is using to go after anybody that wants to provide low-cost energy to Americans.” The concern is not just about the optics of campaign cash, but about the growing practice of progressive groups pouring money into judicial races and then seeing their preferred environmental policies advanced in the courts.
This is not the first time that questions of judicial ethics and political influence have made national headlines. Recent events involving Supreme Court justices, such as Justice Thomas facing attacks over outside relationships and calls to cut funding over family ties, show just how politicized the judiciary has become in the eyes of both parties. Yet, when it comes to left-aligned justices and progressive PACs, the same critics who demand recusal or transparency from conservatives are often silent.
Endorsements from groups like the Michigan League of Conservation Voters add another layer. The League, which also endorsed Cavanagh and Hood, said its backing goes to candidates with a “strong commitment” to environmental protection, public health, and “democracy.” These endorsements, paired with campaign cash from national activist PACs, leave many voters wondering whether the courts are still impartial arbiters, or just another front in the climate policy wars.
The legal battle over Line 5 is far from over. After the Supreme Court’s ruling, the project returns to the Michigan Public Service Commission for further proceedings, leaving Michigan’s energy future, and thousands of jobs, on hold. Meanwhile, Enbridge continues to operate the pipeline, protected for now by a federal ruling that blocked the state’s shutdown effort in December 2025, citing federal law and international treaties as overriding state action.
For everyday Michiganders and Americans who rely on affordable energy, the consequences of this left-leaning judicial activism are clear: policy decisions that should be made by elected legislators are increasingly decided in the courts, often influenced by outside money and activist pressure. As we’ve seen in other high-profile Supreme Court cases, such as the Roberts decision allowing construction to proceed while legal challenges continue, the battle for the courts is now a central front in America’s political wars.
When left-wing PACs can funnel money to judicial candidates, win endorsements, and see their preferred policies advanced by the courts, the lines between law and politics blur. The result is a system where judicial independence, and public trust in the courts, are put at risk for the sake of ideology.
That’s not accountability. That’s a stacked deck, and Americans deserve better.
