Photo credit: www.cbsnews.com
Greenpeace Found Liable for $660 Million in North Dakota Pipeline Protest Case
In a significant ruling for the oil and gas pipeline company Energy Transfer, a jury in North Dakota has held Greenpeace accountable for over $660 million in damages and defamation relating to the high-profile protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline that took place between 2016 and 2017.
Energy Transfer, based in Dallas, alleged that Greenpeace was instrumental in spreading defamation, disrupting operations, and causing property damage during these protests, which garnered national media attention. Greenpeace responded by asserting that the lawsuit infringes upon its rights to free speech.
Following the verdict, Energy Transfer released a statement asserting that this ruling serves to benefit the residents of Mandan and the broader North Dakota community, who experienced the daily disruptions attributed to the protests. The company emphasized the difference between lawful free speech and unlawful actions leading to public disorder.
Greenpeace has indicated its intention to appeal the verdict. Interim executive director Sushma Raman stated that while this chapter has concluded, the organization’s fight will continue. She highlighted that the financial penalty is not what Energy Transfer seeks; rather, the company aims to suppress dissent against its operations.
Greenpeace characterized the lawsuit as a “SLAPP”—a strategic lawsuit against public participation—referring to a legal tactic that targets individuals or organizations for exercising free speech or engaging in public advocacy by imposing costly legal battles. Although 35 states have implemented anti-SLAPP laws to combat such maneuvers, North Dakota does not have similar protections.
Previously, Energy Transfer filed a federal lawsuit against Greenpeace in 2017, seeking $300 million under the RICO Act, but that case was dismissed. Subsequently, the company shifted its focus to state court in North Dakota.
“The verdict against Greenpeace is a direct attack on the rights of free speech and the right to protest,” commented Rebecca Brown, president and CEO of the Center for International and Environmental Law. She described this case as an illustration of how corporations attempt to manipulate the legal system to silence public dissent and intimidate communities, framing it as a broader risk to environmental justice and democratic freedoms.
As the trial approached, Greenpeace warned that the damages claimed by Energy Transfer would be catastrophic, estimating that the amount sought could exceed the non-profit’s entire annual budget in the U.S. Energy Transfer reported over $82 billion in revenue for 2024, illustrating the vast disparity between the resources of the two entities.
The jury ultimately awarded approximately $667 million, distributing the burden across different branches of Greenpeace: Greenpeace USA is liable for around $404 million, with Greenpeace Fund Inc. and Greenpeace International facing approximately $131 million each, according to reports from The Associated Press.
The 1,172-mile Dakota Access Pipeline traverses multiple states and has been in operation since late 2017, despite the ongoing controversy surrounding it. The pipeline’s route under Lake Oahe, near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, has been contested by the Sioux tribe, which argues that it violates treaty rights and poses a threat to their primary water source and sacred sites.
The Standing Rock protests, which drew numerous demonstrators nationwide, saw participants set up camp near the construction site. Many prominent figures, including politicians and celebrities, visited the encampments, lending visibility to the cause.
As tensions escalated, instances of violence erupted between law enforcement and protestors, culminating in the use of tear gas and water cannons. Law enforcement cleared the protest camps in February 2017, resulting in over 140 arrests.
Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney associated with the Lakota People’s Law Project who played a role in organizing the protests, expressed skepticism about Greenpeace’s liability. Iron Eyes emphasized that he had no direct connections with Greenpeace representatives or their training initiatives and criticized the ruling as diminishing the agency of Native Americans in the protests. “This is a fight led by our tribal nation,” he stated, expressing concern about the implications of placing responsibility on an outside organization.
Source
www.cbsnews.com