A North Dakota jury on Wednesday found Greenpeace liable for defamation and other claims brought by a pipeline company in connection with protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline.
The nine-person jury awarded Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access more than US$650 million in damages, The Associated Press reports. (Other news reports put the total at $660 million.)
The lawsuit had accused Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. of defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy, and other acts.
Greenpeace USA said it plans to appeal the decision. “We know that this fight is not over,” said Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha, when asked if the amount of damages would end Greenpeace in the United States.
“We know that the truth and the law are on our side,” added Greenpeace International General Counsel Kristin Casper. “We will not back down, we will not be silenced.”
Casper said the organization is already preparing an “anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest,” vowing that “we will see Energy Transfer in court this July in the Netherlands.”
Energy Transfer called the verdict a “win” for residents of Mandan, North Dakota, and across the state.
“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 to AP.
But Padmanabha said Greenpeace’s role in the Dakota Access fight was to support local communities against what she called Energy Transfer’s “blatant disregard” for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which had stood against the pipeline. “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,” she said.
Greenpeace representatives have framed the lawsuit as a critical test of U.S. First Amendment free speech and protest rights and could threaten the organization’s future. Energy Transfer maintained the lawsuit was about Greenpeace not following the law, not free speech. The company called the verdict a win for “Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law.”
The case reaches back to protests in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access oil pipeline and its Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. For years the tribe has opposed the line as a risk to its water supply. The multistate pipeline has been transporting oil since mid-2017.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Trey Cox said Greenpeace carried out a scheme to stop the pipeline’s construction. During opening statements, he alleged Greenpeace paid outsiders to come into the area and protest, sent blockade supplies, organized or led protester trainings, and made untrue statements about the project to stop it.
Attorneys for the Greenpeace entities said there was no evidence to the claims, that Greenpeace employees had little or no involvement in the protests, and the organizations had nothing to do with Energy Transfer’s delays in construction or refinancing.
