Greenpeace Ordered to Pay $660 Million in Dakota Access Pipeline Protest Case: A Clash Over Free Speech and Corporate Power

A North Dakota jury has delivered a staggering verdict against the environmental organization Greenpeace, ordering them to pay over $660 million in damages related to protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline’s construction. The lawsuit, brought forth by Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access, accused Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and the Greenpeace Fund Inc. of engaging in defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy, and other unlawful acts during the protests.

The jury found Greenpeace USA liable on all counts, while the other two entities were found liable on some. The substantial damages will be distributed among the three organizations.

The verdict has ignited a fierce debate about the boundaries of free speech, the right to protest, and the increasing use of legal action by corporations to suppress dissent. Greenpeace has vehemently denounced the lawsuit as "meritless" and a dangerous attempt to weaponize the courts to silence environmental activism.

Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund, expressed deep concern about the implications of the verdict. "This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations," Raman stated. "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."

The organization had previously warned that a large award to the pipeline company could potentially bankrupt Greenpeace, effectively crippling its ability to advocate for environmental protection.

Following the verdict, Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace’s senior legal advisor, emphasized the organization’s unwavering commitment to its mission. "Our work is never going to stop," Padmanabha declared. "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."

Greenpeace has announced its intention to appeal the decision, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle.

Energy Transfer, on the other hand, hailed the verdict as a victory for those who recognize the distinction between protected free speech and illegal behavior. "While we are pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, this win is really 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," the company said in a statement.

Energy Transfer asserted that the lawsuit was not an attack on free speech, but rather a response to protesters who allegedly broke the law.

The lawsuit stems from protests that took place in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access oil pipeline, a multi-state project that sparked widespread opposition, particularly from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The tribe argued that the pipeline posed a significant risk to its water supply and would cause irreparable harm to their ancestral lands.

Thousands of protesters camped for months near the Standing Rock Reservation, where the pipeline crosses underneath the Missouri River, a vital source of water for the tribe. The protests drew attention from around the world, with environmental activists, indigenous rights advocates, and concerned citizens joining the ranks of those opposing the pipeline.

The Dakota Access pipeline, which began transporting oil in mid-2017, carries approximately 5% of the United States’ daily oil production. Its construction and operation have been a source of ongoing controversy and legal challenges.

Free speech advocates and environmental organizations have criticized the trial, arguing that the lawsuit was a strategic maneuver designed to silence dissent and bankrupt opponents of the pipeline. They contend that the verdict sets a dangerous precedent, potentially chilling the exercise of free speech rights and discouraging individuals and organizations from engaging in peaceful protest against corporate interests.

The case has drawn comparisons to "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" (SLAPP suits), which are often used by corporations or individuals to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with costly and time-consuming legal battles. Critics argue that SLAPP suits can have a chilling effect on public discourse and undermine the ability of citizens to hold powerful entities accountable.

The debate surrounding the Greenpeace verdict raises fundamental questions about the balance between corporate rights, environmental protection, and the exercise of free speech. As the case moves forward on appeal, it is likely to continue to fuel discussions about the role of the courts in resolving disputes between corporations and activists, and the potential impact of such litigation on the future of environmental advocacy. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the ability of individuals and organizations to challenge corporate actions and advocate for environmental protection through peaceful protest and activism.