MANDAN, N.D. (AP) — In a significant ruling, a North Dakota jury has found Greenpeace liable for defamation and other allegations brought forth by a pipeline company related to protests against the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline. The verdict, delivered on Wednesday, comes after a nine-person jury awarded Energy Transfer, based in Dallas, along with its subsidiary Dakota Access, hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
The lawsuit accused the Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and its funding arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc., of a range of serious claims including defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy, and other unlawful acts. Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha commented on the verdict, stating, “We know that this fight is not over,” indicating that the organization is considering an appeal. She emphasized that Greenpeace’s commitment to its mission “is never going to stop,” responding to concerns about whether the awarded damages could impede the organization’s operations in the United States.
Padmanabha further elaborated on the situation, sharing, “That’s the really important message today, and we’re just walking out and we’re going to get together and figure out what our next steps are.” However, an email sent to representatives of Energy Transfer regarding their stance on the verdict has not yet received a response.
The legal dispute traces its roots back to the widespread protests that occurred in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access oil pipeline, particularly surrounding its crossing of the Missouri River upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has consistently opposed the pipeline, raising concerns over the potential risks it poses to their water supply. Since mid-2017, the multistate pipeline has been operational, transporting oil across several states.
During the opening statements of the trial, plaintiffs’ attorney Trey Cox accused Greenpeace of executing a deliberate plan to halt the construction of the pipeline. He alleged that the organization paid outsiders to join the protests, provided supplies for blockades, organized protests, and disseminated false information about the project to undermine its progress. In contrast, attorneys representing the Greenpeace entities argued that there was no substantial evidence to support these claims. They maintained that Greenpeace employees had minimal to no involvement in the protests, asserting that the organization was not responsible for any delays in the pipeline's construction or financing.
Greenpeace representatives have characterized the lawsuit as a pivotal test of First Amendment rights regarding free speech and protest, warning that the outcome could pose a significant threat to the organization’s future. A spokesperson for Energy Transfer previously stated that the lawsuit was about ensuring compliance with the law rather than infringing on free speech rights.
The jury's decision marks a critical moment in the ongoing battle between environmental advocacy and corporate interests, raising questions about the future of environmental protests and the legal implications of activism in the United States.
