Greenpeace Ordered to Pay Hundreds of Millions in Dakota Access Pipeline Protest Case
A Texas-based pipeline company, Energy Transfer, has secured a significant legal victory against environmental organization Greenpeace, with a North Dakota jury ordering the group to pay over $660 million in damages related to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The verdict, delivered on Wednesday at the Morton County courthouse, holds Greenpeace accountable for its role in disrupting the pipeline’s construction and disseminating what the company alleges was misinformation about the project.
The lawsuit targeted Greenpeace USA, its international parent organization Greenpeace International, and its funding arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc., accusing them of financially supporting protesters and orchestrating a campaign to obstruct the pipeline’s development. Energy Transfer argued that these actions resulted in significant financial losses, initially seeking $300 million but ultimately proving damages exceeding that amount to the jury.
After two days of deliberation, the nine-person jury found Greenpeace liable for defamation, trespassing, and civil conspiracy, awarding Energy Transfer a staggering sum that included over $400 million in punitive damages. Punitive damages are designed to punish defendants for particularly egregious behavior and deter similar actions in the future.
Greenpeace has vehemently denounced the verdict and vowed to appeal, framing the case as an attack on free speech and the right to peaceful protest. The organization maintains that its involvement in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, which occurred nearly a decade ago near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, was minimal.
Energy Transfer, however, hailed the outcome as a triumph for law-abiding citizens. The company emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the constitutional right to free speech and actions that cross the line into illegal activity. In a statement, Energy Transfer asserted that the verdict was not just a victory for the company itself but also for the residents of Mandan and other North Dakota communities who endured harassment and disruptions caused by protesters allegedly funded and trained by Greenpeace.
The roots of the legal battle trace back to 2017 when Energy Transfer initially filed a lawsuit accusing Greenpeace of racketeering and defamation, aiming to impede the Dakota Access Pipeline project. While a federal court dismissed the racketeering charges in 2019, Energy Transfer subsequently pursued a defamation claim in state court.
Greenpeace has previously warned that the damages sought by Energy Transfer could bankrupt its U.S. operations. The organization has characterized the lawsuit as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), a legal tactic often employed by corporations to silence critics and impose heavy litigation costs. SLAPP lawsuits are generally viewed as meritless and designed to suppress free speech. While 35 states and the District of Columbia have enacted anti-SLAPP laws to protect individuals and organizations from such lawsuits, North Dakota does not have such a statute.
Undeterred by the North Dakota verdict, Greenpeace International has initiated its own legal action against Energy Transfer in a Dutch court. This lawsuit is intended to test a new European law aimed at preventing corporations from using litigation to silence activists. Kristin Casper, general counsel for Greenpeace International, has declared that the organization will not back down and will continue to challenge Energy Transfer’s actions, asserting that the fight against attacks on free speech and peaceful protest is just beginning.
The Dakota Access Pipeline, completed in 2017, transports approximately 40% of the oil produced in North Dakota’s Bakken region. The project has faced fierce opposition from tribal advocacy groups and environmental activists who argue that it contributes to global warming, endangers water supplies, and infringes upon Native American ancestral lands. The protests against the pipeline began in April 2016 and continued until February 2017, when authorities cleared the protest camps.
The verdict against Greenpeace has sparked concerns among civil rights and environmental law experts. Civil rights attorney V. James DeSimone believes the decision could have a chilling effect on future protests, potentially discouraging individuals and organizations from engaging in similar activism. He stressed the importance of peaceful protest as a means of exercising freedom of speech and assembly. DeSimone also highlighted the fact that the protests were initiated by Native Americans concerned about the potential impact of the pipeline on their water resources.
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has reaffirmed its commitment to defending the constitutional right to protest, particularly in the context of Indigenous-led actions to protect land, health, and cultural heritage. CIEL president and CEO Rebecca Brown characterized the verdict as an attack on free speech, protest rights, and the sovereign rights of the Standing Rock Sioux and all Indigenous Peoples defending their land and water.
The case underscores the ongoing tension between energy development and environmental protection, and the legal battles that often ensue when these interests clash. The outcome of Greenpeace’s appeal and the legal proceedings in the Netherlands will be closely watched by activists, corporations, and legal observers alike, as they could set precedents for future cases involving protest, free speech, and corporate accountability. The broader implications of this case extend beyond the immediate parties involved, potentially shaping the landscape for environmental activism and corporate responsibility for years to come. It highlights the challenges faced by organizations seeking to challenge powerful corporations and the potential legal and financial risks associated with such activism.
