A political action committee focusing on opposing the fossil fuel industry helped fund the campaigns of two Michigan Supreme Court justices who subsequently ruled against a significant oil pipeline initiative.
About six weeks prior to Michigan’s Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh and Justice Noah Hood participating in a 6-1 vote to overturn the approval for Enbridge’s Line 5 project, citing insufficient evaluation of environmental effects, both received $5,000 from the Jane Fonda Climate PAC (JanePAC), as documented in campaign finance records. This financial support coincided with a larger effort by climate advocates to influence the judiciary by electing judges aligned with environmental interests.
Line 5, spanning 645 miles, begins in Superior, Wisconsin, crosses both Michigan Peninsulas, and ends near Sarnia, Ontario in Canada. It primarily transports light crude oil and natural gas liquids, boasting an average capacity of 540,000 barrels daily. Notably, only around four miles of the pipeline traverse the Straits of Mackinac, where it currently operates using two pipelines situated near or on the lakebed.
Jane Fonda, a well-known actress and climate activist who established the PAC, has vocally opposed the pipeline and has supported Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel, according to various news reports. She also protested the reconstruction of the Line 3 crude oil pipeline in Minnesota in 2021, as reported by the Associated Press.
“This is just another tactic the anti-energy left is employing against those who aim to provide affordable energy for Americans,” asserted Jason Torchinsky, attorney for the Patriots Foundation, a government transparency organization based in Iowa, which is unrelated to the NFL team by the same name.
Critics argue that the influx of money from climate groups into judicial campaigns blurs the distinction between environmental activism and an impartial judiciary, particularly if judges arrive at decisions in environmental cases that may be swayed by such funding.
Attempts to reach JanePAC, Cavanagh, and Hood for comments went unanswered.
The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling regarding Line 5 also encompassed another significant conflict regarding fossil fuel infrastructure and its environmental consequences. This legal contention stemmed from Enbridge’s initiative to reroute the segment of its Line 5 pipeline that crosses the Straits of Mackinac into a tunnel beneath the lakebed.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on July 31 overturned a previous decision from the Michigan Court of Appeals that had upheld the Michigan Public Service Commission’s endorsement of Enbridge’s relocation project. Consequently, the state supreme court annulled this approval and directed the matter back to the Commission for additional examination.
The dispute surrounding Line 5 originated in June 2019, when Attorney General Nessel filed a lawsuit against Enbridge in state court, aiming to permanently decommission the pipeline, which she labeled as an “unacceptable risk to the Great Lakes.” She contended that the ongoing operations were in violation of Michigan’s public trust doctrine and posed significant environmental risks.
Enbridge later attempted to transfer the case to federal court, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in April that the company had delayed too long, causing the case to revert to Michigan’s 30th Circuit Court.
Both Cavanagh and Hood are pursuing full terms on the Michigan Supreme Court in the upcoming November elections and have received endorsements from Jane Fonda Climate PAC. JanePAC has allocated $81,000 in Michigan during the current election cycle. The PAC, backed by affluent donors linked to climate initiatives, is also financially supporting other candidates in Michigan apart from the two justices. Notably, they have endorsed Democratic attorney general candidate Eli Savit, who received $12,500.
In addition, state senate candidate Natalie Price, Michigan House candidate Jaime Churches, and congressional candidate Will Lawrence — a co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, which advocates for a Green Deal — each acquired $5,000 for their campaigns, as shown in federal records.
“I’m appreciative of Jane Fonda Climate PAC’s support for investing in candidates and campaigns with shared values,” Jaime Churches mentioned in a statement. “My focus is on ensuring that working families can afford to live and thrive in Michigan, which, of course, involves advocating for clean air and water, holding polluters accountable, and safeguarding our Great Lakes.”
Requests for comments from Savit, Price, and Lawrence were not promptly answered.
The Michigan League of Conservation Voters (Michigan LCV) also endorsed Cavanagh and Hood on June 17, stating that their endorsements are given to candidates demonstrating a strong commitment to environmental protection, public health, and democracy.
Both Michigan LCV and JanePAC are part of a national coalition striving to educate legal professionals on applying climate science in litigation.
Cavanagh, who worked in environmental consulting before her legal career, shared her background on “The Portia Project Podcast.” She holds a degree in environmental engineering from the University of Michigan and previously evaluated environmental risk and property development before transitioning to law.
Her campaign website does not specifically list her environmental priorities, although her record includes numerous rulings recognized by Michigan LCV. This includes an order allowing constitutional claims from Flint residents regarding contaminated water to proceed, and decisions enhancing access to government documents. She was also among the justices who rejected an attempt to halt the certification of Michigan’s 2020 presidential election results.
On the other hand, Hood, who joined the supreme court in May 2025 following service on the Michigan Court of Appeals and Wayne County Circuit Court, has a shorter record. Nevertheless, the Michigan LCV endorsed him alongside Cavanagh, appreciating his dedication to environmental rights and democracy. Hood joined his colleagues in the ruling that rejected the state commission’s endorsement of the tunnel project.
The Michigan Public Service Commission had approved Enbridge’s plan in 2023 to replace the existing crossing at the Straits with a new 30-inch pipeline encased inside a concrete-lined tunnel situated beneath the lakebed. The plan was initially claimed to reflect a public necessity as other transport methods would supposedly pose greater risks and costs to Michigan consumers while also reportedly offering extra protection against potential accidents.
Michigan conducted engineering and risk assessments on the current Line 5 pipes, documenting previous issues such as gaps in protective coatings and incidents like a 2018 anchor strike that created dents in the pipeline. However, these investigations did not conclude that there was an imminent risk of an oil spill.
In response to potential anchor strikes, Michigan established a no-anchor zone around the Straits, limiting vessels from anchoring near the pipelines unless in emergencies.
The contention over Line 5 also involves the tunnel project. Governor Whitmer’s administration took action in 2020 to revoke the easement allowing the pipeline’s passage through the Straits and force Enbridge to cease its operations there. Enbridge has contested this shutdown in federal court.
A federal court ultimately blocked Michigan’s attempt to shut down the pipeline in December 2025, referencing that federal pipeline safety laws superseded state efforts, alongside conflicts with U.S. foreign policy related to international pipelines.
This issue has also extended into Wisconsin, where the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians sued Enbridge in 2019 regarding the pipeline’s operations across tribal lands following rights-of-way expirations, raising concerns about potential ruptures due to erosion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in July that Enbridge was in trespass; however, it mandated a reconsideration of previously imposed remedies due to the displacement of the tribe’s public-nuisance claims by federal law.
Enbridge has previously experienced a significant spill in Michigan when its Line 6B ruptured in 2010, discharging over 843,000 gallons of oil into the environment, affecting Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Requests for comments from the Michigan LCV and Enbridge went unanswered.
