A North Dakota jury on Wednesday held Greenpeace responsible for defamation and other claims made by a pipeline company amid protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline. The nine-member jury awarded Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. The lawsuit accused Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund Inc.—its funding arm—of defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy, and other wrongful acts.
The verdict comes amid President Donald Trump’s efforts to dramatically increase domestic oil and gas production, which coincides with promises he made during his campaign to “drill, baby, drill.” It’s not clear if the White House had any involvement in the case or provided any assistance to the Energy Transfer’s legal team, but the victory for the Dallas-based energy firm will likely embolden the administration’s push to expand fossil fuel development.
When asked if Greenpeace plans to appeal, Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha said, “We know that this fight is not over.” The AP noted that Padmanabha also said that the organization’s work “is never going stop,” responding to questions about whether the damages amount would end Greenpeace in the United States. “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,” Padmanabha said.
The case dates back to protests in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access oil pipeline and its Missouri River crossing, located upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation—a project the tribe has long opposed due to water supply concerns. The multistate pipeline has been transporting oil since mid-2017.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Trey Cox asserted that Greenpeace orchestrated a scheme to derail the pipeline’s construction. In his opening statements, Cox claimed that Greenpeace paid individuals to join protests, provided blockade supplies, organized or led protester training sessions, and disseminated false statements about the project to obstruct its progress.
Attorneys for the Greenpeace groups argued that there is no evidence to support the claims, noting that Greenpeace employees had minimal involvement in the protests and that the organizations played no role in Energy Transfer’s construction delays or refinancing issues.
Greenpeace representatives have described the lawsuit as a crucial test of First Amendment free speech and protest rights, warning that it could jeopardize the organization’s future. In contrast, a spokesperson for Energy Transfer maintained that the lawsuit concerns Greenpeace’s failure to comply with the law, rather than an issue of free speech.
