A jury in North Dakota ruled on Wednesday that Greenpeace must pay substantial damages to Energy Transfer due to its involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline nearly ten years ago. This decision represents a major legal setback for the environmental group, which has been active in climate-related advocacy for decades.
Energy Transfer, the Texas-based company responsible for the Dakota Access Pipeline, sued Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and its fundraising entity, Greenpeace Fund Inc., seeking $300 million in damages. The company accused Greenpeace of defamation and other activities related to its support of protests opposing the pipeline’s construction, according to National Review.
Greenpeace maintained that the lawsuit was an industry-backed effort to silence environmental activism, even using the legal battle to raise funds for its cause. However, after deliberating for two days, the jury ultimately sided with Energy Transfer following a trial that lasted three weeks.
Kelcy Warren, Energy Transfer’s co-founder stated that combating what he described as a “false narrative” spread by environmental protesters was essential. According to The New York Times, Warren believed the lawsuit was necessary to defend his company’s reputation.
The Dakota Access Pipeline protests, which took place in 2016 and 2017, became a national focal point, drawing support from Native American tribes, activists, celebrities, and prominent Democratic politicians. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, along with other Indigenous groups, opposed the pipeline due to concerns that it could endanger drinking water and disrupt sacred cultural sites.
The pipeline, designed to transport crude oil from North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to Illinois, includes a segment running beneath Lake Oahe, a Missouri River reservoir close to the Standing Rock reservation. Despite ongoing demonstrations and legal efforts to halt its progress, the pipeline commenced operations in early 2017, during Trump’s presidency.
Protests at the site persisted for months, with activists setting up camps near Standing Rock and occasionally clashing with law enforcement. The movement became a rallying point for progressive activists and supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of financing outside protesters, supplying materials, organizing training, and disseminating misleading information about the pipeline’s environmental risks. The company argued that these actions delayed construction, increased costs, and harmed its public image. Energy Transfer estimated that protest-related delays cost the company $340 million and sought punitive damages for what it viewed as intentional interference.
In response, Greenpeace downplayed its involvement in the protests and argued that the lawsuit posed a serious threat to free speech protections under the First Amendment. The organization also warned that the financial implications of the ruling could hinder its ability to continue its activism in the future.
Following the verdict, Greenpeace senior legal advisor Deepa Padmanabha told the Associated Press, “The work of Greenpeace is never going to stop. 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.”
If the verdict stands, the financial consequences could significantly impact Greenpeace’s operations, and also potentially reshape the way activist groups engage in large-scale protests against corporations in the future, adds National Review.
Good.