Two Michigan Supreme Court justices took campaign donations from a Jane Fonda-backed political group just weeks before they joined a decision freezing a major oil pipeline project, a sequence raising fresh concerns about judicial impartiality and outside political influence.

The Jane Fonda Climate PAC contributed $5,000 each to the reelection campaigns of Michigan Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh and Justice Noah Hood roughly six weeks before both justices voted with the majority in a 6-1 decision that vacated regulatory approval for Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline tunnel project. The ruling, issued July 31, sent the project back to the Michigan Public Service Commission for further environmental review, stalling a major energy infrastructure effort that has drawn fierce opposition from climate activists and support from those prioritizing affordable energy.

Federal campaign-finance records show the Jane Fonda Climate PAC made the contributions to the Cavanagh and Hood campaigns as they each sought a full term on the state’s highest court this November. Both justices were also publicly endorsed by the PAC and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, which cited their “strong commitment” to issues including “rights, resources, environment and democracy.” Neither Cavanagh, Hood, nor the PAC responded to requests for comment about the timing or influence of the donations.

The court’s ruling concerned Enbridge’s plan to relocate a four-mile section of its 645-mile Line 5 pipeline into a tunnel deep beneath the Straits of Mackinac, a move the company and its supporters argue would enhance environmental safety and ensure continued delivery of 540,000 barrels of oil per day across the region. The Michigan Supreme Court vacated the Michigan Public Service Commission’s December 2023 approval of the plan, citing an inadequate review of environmental impacts, and ordered the Commission to revisit the decision.

The donation timeline and subsequent vote have drawn criticism from watchdog groups and energy advocates, who see the episode as evidence of progressive groups leveraging campaign cash and judicial endorsements to sway outcomes on high-stakes infrastructure and energy cases. Jason Torchinsky, an attorney for the Patriots Foundation, called the spending “one more tool the anti-energy left is using to go after anybody that wants to provide low-cost energy to Americans.”

Jane Fonda PAC targets Michigan races, Line 5 project

The Jane Fonda Climate PAC, established by the Hollywood actress and climate activist, is openly dedicated to defeating the fossil fuel industry at the ballot box and in the courts. The PAC’s activity in Michigan has spiked during the current election cycle, with federal records showing $81,000 spent on contributions to state-level candidates, including the $5,000 each to Cavanagh and Hood. Other recipients include Democratic attorney general nominee Eli Savit ($12,500), state Senate candidate Natalie Price ($5,000), state House candidate Jaime Churches ($5,000), and congressional candidate Will Lawrence ($5,000).

Jane Fonda has publicly denounced Line 5 and voiced support for Michigan’s Democratic leadership, including Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel. The group’s endorsement of Cavanagh and Hood was echoed by the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, which praised the justices for their “strong commitment” to environmental and democracy issues.

The PAC’s involvement in Michigan judicial and legislative races fits a broader pattern of left-wing organizations seeking to influence legal outcomes through targeted campaign contributions. Climate activist groups have argued that the Line 5 pipeline poses risks to the Great Lakes. Attorney General Nessel, who sued Enbridge in 2019 and called the pipeline an “unacceptable risk,” has been a vocal opponent of continued operation.

Pipelines, politics, and the fight over energy infrastructure

The controversy over Line 5 is the latest round in a long-running battle over energy policy, environmental regulation, and the role of courts in refereeing disputes between activists, regulators, and the companies that keep the lights on. The pipeline, which runs from Superior, Wisconsin, to Sarnia, Ontario, has faced a series of legal and regulatory challenges, including a major rupture on a separate Enbridge line in 2010 and an anchor strike in 2018 that damaged the existing Line 5 infrastructure.

In 2023, the state Public Service Commission approved Enbridge’s plan to build a new 30-inch pipeline inside a concrete-lined tunnel 60 to 370 feet beneath the lakebed. The tunnel was pitched as a way to reduce environmental risk while maintaining vital energy flows. But Governor Whitmer’s administration moved in 2020 to revoke the easement allowing Line 5 to cross the Straits, and Nessel’s suit sought to permanently decommission the pipeline. A federal court blocked Michigan’s shutdown effort in December 2025, citing federal pipeline-safety law and concerns about international energy supply.

The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that Enbridge had waited too long to attempt moving the dispute to federal court, requiring the case to return to Michigan’s 30th Circuit Court. Meanwhile, the Michigan Supreme Court’s most recent decision has again put the project on hold, raising questions about whether judicial decisions are being swayed by political donations and activist pressure rather than neutral legal principles.

The Michigan episode is not isolated. As seen in the Supreme Court’s recent order to redo pipeline permits, and in contentious cases nationwide, the growing role of political money and ideological advocacy in judicial races has fueled debate over whether justice is being politicized or compromised.

Watchdogs warn of influence, justices and PAC silent

Neither Justice Cavanagh nor Justice Hood responded to requests for comment on whether the Jane Fonda Climate PAC donations influenced their participation or votes in the Line 5 case. Jane Fonda’s PAC also declined to respond. The Michigan League of Conservation Voters and Enbridge similarly did not provide statements. This silence leaves open questions about the boundaries between judicial independence and the reality of big-money political campaigns, especially when the outcomes affect millions of residents and critical infrastructure.

Energy advocates and transparency groups remain alert to the risks posed by outside influence, with the Patriots Foundation and other watchdogs demanding greater accountability from courts. The interplay between campaign cash, judicial endorsements, and controversial rulings has also drawn scrutiny in other high-profile judicial disputes, such as the Arizona Supreme Court’s handling of election-related cases and ongoing debate over the proper limits of political influence on the judiciary.

The Line 5 dispute sits at the intersection of environmental activism, energy security, and the politicization of judicial decision-making. The episode also echoes broader national conflicts, like recent Supreme Court setbacks involving the Trump administration and challenges to DOJ independence, where the public has reason to question whether America’s institutions are still acting above politics or are succumbing to outside ideological pressure.

As the fight over Line 5 continues and the justices campaign for new terms, Michigan voters, and Americans nationwide, are left to decide whether justice is for sale, or if courts can still be trusted to call balls and strikes, no matter who pens the checks.

When the left’s money and activism reach the courtroom, those who play by the rules, and rely on affordable energy, are too often the ones left in the cold.