A jury in North Dakota has ruled that Greenpeace is liable for defamation, ordering the environmental organization to pay over $650 million (£507 million) in damages to Energy Transfer, a Texas-based oil company. This ruling stems from one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in U.S. history, specifically against the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline.
Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of engaging in trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy during protests that took place nearly a decade ago. The lawsuit, filed in state court, claimed that Greenpeace orchestrated an unlawful and violent campaign aimed at inflicting financial harm on the company. The central argument was that Greenpeace was responsible for the significant financial damages incurred due to the protests.
Greenpeace has announced its intention to appeal the verdict, expressing concerns that the outcome could lead to its bankruptcy and potentially jeopardize over 50 years of environmental activism. The organization contends that it did not lead the protests, which were primarily driven by local indigenous leaders opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline. They argue that the lawsuit poses a significant threat to free speech and the right to peaceful protest.
The nine-person jury reached a verdict after approximately two days of deliberation, with proceedings taking place in Mandan, North Dakota, about 100 miles (160 km) from the protest sites. During closing arguments, Trey Cox, a lawyer representing Energy Transfer, asserted that Greenpeace's actions resulted in damages ranging from $265 million to $340 million, urging the jury to award that sum in addition to further damages.
The protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline gained considerable media attention during President Donald Trump's first term, as thousands of demonstrators, including over 200 Native American tribes and numerous activists, sought to block the pipeline's construction near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. At its peak, the protest site housed over 10,000 individuals, including military veterans, actors, and political figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The Dakota Access Pipeline, which spans 1,172 miles, has been operational since 2017. However, it still lacks a crucial permit to function beneath Lake Oahe in South Dakota, prompting local tribes to demand a comprehensive environmental review of the project.
During the trial, jurors heard testimony from Energy Transfer's co-founder and chairman, Kelcy Warren, who claimed that the protesters had developed a completely false narrative about the company. He expressed that it was time for Energy Transfer to take a stand against what he described as misleading allegations. Energy Transfer's legal counsel argued that Greenpeace exploited the situation surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline to advance its own agenda.
In contrast, attorneys representing Greenpeace asserted that the organization did not lead the protests but instead provided support for nonviolent, direct-action training. Following the verdict, Greenpeace USA's senior legal adviser, Deepa Padmanabha, stated that lawsuits like this aim to undermine the rights to peaceful protest and free speech.
Legal experts, including Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, have expressed concerns that the magnitude of this verdict could have a chilling effect on environmental and public interest litigation. He suggested that this ruling might encourage similar lawsuits in other states against environmental organizations.
Energy Transfer's legal action specifically named Greenpeace USA, its funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc based in Washington, D.C., and its parent organization Greenpeace International located in Amsterdam. This is not the first legal confrontation between Energy Transfer and Greenpeace; a previous lawsuit filed in 2017, which accused demonstrators of violating a racketeering statute typically associated with organized crime, was dismissed by a judge.
In response to the ongoing legal battle, Greenpeace has initiated a counter-suit against Energy Transfer in Dutch court, alleging that the oil company is misusing the legal system to silence critics. This counteraction seeks to recover all damages incurred and associated costs. Greenpeace International's general counsel, Kristin Casper, emphasized that Energy Transfer has not seen the last of their legal challenges, asserting that the organization will not back down or be silenced.
