A North Dakota jury has ruled that Greenpeace must pay more than $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the oil company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. The ruling, which environmental activists have condemned as a “travesty of justice,” has raised alarm among free speech advocates, who warn that the case is a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) designed to silence dissent.
The decision, reached after two days of jury deliberation, could have significant consequences not just for Greenpeace but for protest movements across the United States. The ruling comes as corporations increasingly use the legal system to target environmental activists and advocacy groups that oppose fossil fuel projects.
“This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations,” said Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace’s U.S. entities. “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.”
Despite the ruling, Greenpeace has vowed to appeal, and the organization has launched a countersuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands under a new European Union directive against SLAPP suits.
The lawsuit, brought by Texas-based Energy Transfer, accused Greenpeace of playing a key role in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline nearly a decade ago. The company claimed that Greenpeace funded, trained, and coordinated activists at Standing Rock, where Indigenous leaders and environmental groups fought to block the pipeline’s construction.
Energy Transfer alleged that Greenpeace’s actions led to financial damages and disruptions, while Greenpeace countered that the lawsuit was an attempt to criminalize environmental activism and silence opposition.
A nine-person jury in Mandan, North Dakota, ultimately ruled in favor of Energy Transfer, delivering one of the largest financial penalties ever imposed on an environmental group. The company celebrated the decision, stating, “We are very pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, but this win is also for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace.”
Greenpeace has denied being a central organizer of the Standing Rock protests, maintaining that its involvement was limited to advocacy and support for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The organization has characterized the case as a direct attack on free speech and peaceful assembly.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are legal actions designed to intimidate critics by burdening them with costly and time-consuming litigation. Corporations, politicians, and wealthy individuals often use SLAPP suits to discourage activism and suppress dissent.
Greenpeace and legal experts argue that Energy Transfer’s lawsuit is a clear-cut example of a SLAPP, intended to send a chilling message to environmental groups and Indigenous activists.
“The law that can come down in this case can affect any demonstration, religious or political. It’s far bigger than the environmental movement,” said Marty Garbus, a veteran First Amendment lawyer. “Yet the court in North Dakota abdicated its sacred duty to conduct a fair and public trial and instead let Energy Transfer run roughshod over the rule of law.”
An independent trial monitoring committee also condemned the verdict, stating that it “reflects a deeply flawed trial with multiple due process violations that denied Greenpeace the ability to present anything close to a full defense.”
“In my six decades of legal practice, I have never witnessed a trial as unfair as the one against Greenpeace that just ended in the courts of North Dakota,” Garbus added. “This is one of the most important cases in American history.”
Greenpeace has linked the ruling to broader attacks on environmental activism under Donald Trump’s presidency.
Mads Christensen, executive director of Greenpeace International, warned that the case reflects a larger political effort to suppress opposition to fossil fuel projects.
“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 livable planet,” Christensen said.
During Trump’s first term, his administration rolled back environmental protections and supported anti-protest laws aimed at restricting activism against oil and gas pipelines. The ruling against Greenpeace is seen as a continuation of these efforts.
“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,” Christensen added.
Despite the verdict, Greenpeace has vowed to continue fighting, both in U.S. courts and through international legal action.
Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal adviser for Greenpeace, confirmed that the organization will appeal the ruling. “We know that this fight is not over,” she said.
Greenpeace has also launched a countersuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, invoking both Dutch law and a new European Union directive against SLAPP suits.
“Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight,” said Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International’s general counsel. “We’re just getting started with our anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest.”
Activists worldwide have condemned the verdict, with Greenpeace supporters in Paris staging a demonstration near the Eiffel Tower in solidarity.
Greenpeace’s legal team is preparing to challenge the ruling in higher courts, hoping to overturn the decision on appeal.
Meanwhile, progressive lawmakers are calling for stronger federal anti-SLAPP protections to prevent corporations from using lawsuits to suppress activism. Some members of Congress are also pushing for an investigation into corporate influence over the judiciary.
The ruling is expected to have a chilling effect on future environmental activism, as other corporations may be emboldened to use SLAPP suits to silence opposition.
The $660 million verdict against Greenpeace is a landmark case with far-reaching implications for protest rights in the United States. If upheld, the ruling could set a precedent allowing corporations to financially crush activist organizations that challenge their interests.
To give, the Greenpeace USA Warrior Defense Fund will provide us with the funds necessary to continue their fight.
COMMENTS