MANDAN, North Dakota, March 19, 2025 (ENS) – A Morton County jury of nine reached a verdict Wednesday in Energy Transfer’s lawsuit against three Greenpeace entities, finding them liable for more than US$660 million in damages.
The lawsuit, brought by Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access, accused Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. of defamation, trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy.
The case relates to protests in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access oil pipeline and its crossing of the Missouri River upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. For years the tribe has opposed the line as a risk to its drinking water supply.
The multistate pipeline has been transporting oil since mid-2017. The pipeline carries oil from North Dakota’s Bakken shale basin to Midwest and Gulf Coast refineries.
The Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over the section of the pipeline that passes under Lake Oahe – a reservoir on the Missouri River – half a mile upstream from the Standing Rock Reservation.
Energy Transfer’s attorney Trey Cox said Greenpeace carried out a plan to stop pipeline construction. During the trial’s opening statements, he alleged Greenpeace paid outsiders to come to the area and protest, sent blockade supplies, organized or led protester trainings, and made untrue statements about the project to stop it.
“These are the facts, not the fake news of the Greenpeace propaganda machine,” Cox told reporters outside the Morton County Courthouse after the verdict.
Energy Transfer representatives believe protesting is an “inherent American right” but that Greenpeace’s actions were “unacceptable,” Cox said.
Attorneys for the Greenpeace entities argued that there is no evidence substantiating these claims, that Greenpeace employees had little or no involvement in the protests, and the three Greenpeace organizations had nothing to do with Energy Transfer’s delays in construction or refinancing.
The jury ordered Greenpeace USA to pay more than $400 million of the damages, but the group has previously said the lawsuit threatened to tip it into bankruptcy.
Greenpeace denies the allegations and says the lawsuit is aimed at punishing activist groups.
“This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations,” said Sushma Raman, interim executive director Greenpeace Inc, Greenpeace Fund. “It’s part of a renewed push by corporations to weaponize our courts to silence dissent.”
“We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech,” Raman said. “These rights are critical for any work toward ensuring justice – and that’s why we will continue fighting back together, in solidarity. While Big Oil bullies can try to stop a single group, they can’t stop a movement.”
Kandi White, a member of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation who observed the trial, said she is “ashamed” of the decision.
White said she found the implication that Greenpeace orchestrated the Dakota Access Pipeline protests insulting to Standing Rock and the other Native nations that were at the center of the movement.
This lawsuit is one of the largest Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, SLAPP, cases ever filed. Greenpeace maintains that these are lawsuits “meant to silence or bankrupt opponents, which is why most U.S. states and several countries have put legal protections in place to protect advocates. But in North Dakota, and 15 other states, no anti-SLAPP laws exist.”
Energy Transfer said in a July 2024 statement that their case is not a free speech case. “Our lawsuit against Greenpeace is not about free speech as they are trying to claim. It is about them not following the law. We support the rights of all Americans to express their opinions and lawfully protest. However, when it is not done in accordance with our laws, we have a legal system to deal with that. Beyond that we will let our case speak for itself in February,” the Dallas-based company said.
Greenpeace argues that, “In this case, Energy Transfer has maintained their entirely false claims that Greenpeace organized the #NoDAPL resistance at Standing Rock, an allegation rooted in racism in its erasure of the Indigenous leadership in North Dakota.”
“What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer’s blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,” said Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor, Greenpeace USA. “And while they also tried to distort the truth about Greenpeace’s role in the protests, we instead reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to non-violence in every action we take.”
“To be clear, Greenpeace’s story is not the story of Standing Rock. Our story is how an organization like Greenpeace USA can support critical fights to protect communities most impacted by the climate crisis, as well as continued attacks on Indigenous sovereignty,” Padmanabha explained.
Greenpeace entities will continue fighting back against this case, including by appealing to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
“We are witnessing a disastrous return to the reckless behavior that fueled the climate crisis, deepened environmental racism, and put fossil fuel profits over public health and a liveable planet,” Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director, said.
“The previous Trump administration spent four years dismantling protections for clean air, water, and Indigenous sovereignty, and now along with its allies wants to finish the job by silencing protest. We will not back down. We will not be silenced,” Christensen declared.
In February 2024, Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive by filing a lawsuit in a Dutch court against Energy Transfer.
Greenpeace International seeks to recover damages and costs it has suffered as a result of what the group says are “Energy Transfer’s back-to-back, meritless lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars” against Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organizations in the United States.
“Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight. We’re just getting started with our anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest,” said Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International General Counsel. “We will see Energy Transfer in court this July in the Netherlands.”
Tribe Brings New Case Against Pipeline
On October 14, 2024, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed a new lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers arguing that the Dakota Access Pipeline is operating illegally and must be shut down.
The tribe has long opposed the DAPL pipeline due to concerns that it violates the tribe’s sovereignty, endangers sacred cultural sites, and threatens to pollute the tribe’s water supply.
In its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia the tribe argues that the Army Corps flouted federal regulations by allowing the pipeline to operate without an easement, sufficient study of possible environmental impacts, or the necessary emergency spill response plans, among other alleged violations.
“We are fighting for our rights and the water that is life for Oceti Sakowin tribes,” Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairwoman Janet Alkire said during a news conference on Indigenous Peoples Day, October 14, 2024.
Featured image: During the first month of President Donald J. Trump’s first term (2017-2021) 300 Native American climate justice activists and supporters gathered on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House to protest the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ sudden granting of the required easement to construct the last leg of the Dakota Access pipeline. February 8, 2017, Washington, DC (Photo by Stephen Melkisethian)
[Editor’s Note: Amy Dalrymple, North Dakota Monitor contributed reporting.]
