A North Dakota court dealt a fatal blow to Greenpeace, ordering the environmental group to pay over $660 million to the Texas-based energy company Energy Transfer. The verdict, resulting from a lawsuit over protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, threatens to jeopardize all of the organization’s activities in the United States.
The jury, composed of nine members and convened in Morton County, deliberated for two days before issuing the ruling and finding the organization guilty of defamation, conspiracy, and trespassing. The amount awarded far exceeds the initial requests made by the oil company, which had estimated damages at around $300 million.
The NGO has announced its intention to appeal, asserting that it played a marginal role in the protests organized by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and calling the lawsuit an attempt to intimidate voices critical of the energy industry.
The protests, which gained significant media attention between 2016 and 2017 and attracted thousands of people camping on disputed land, were a response to the pipeline’s route through sacred Sioux lands, posing a risk to local water resources. Among the many celebrities who arrived in the area were two people who now serve in the Trump administration: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.
At times, the protests degenerated into violence and acts of vandalism, souring local community relations.
The pipeline, which spans 1,172 miles has been operational since 2017, but part of the route is still awaiting final approval. The Sioux continue to fight in court to have it shut down.
The lawsuit was filed against Greenpeace Inc., the branch of the organization that conducts public campaigns, Greenpeace Fund, which seeks funding, and Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, the body that coordinates the 25 independent Greenpeace entities worldwide. Greenpeace Inc.’s actions on the ground, it was stated, included training protesters in protest tactics and providing funds and equipment, including solar-powered trucks to supply energy to the camps.
Energy Transfer’s attorneys accused Greenpeace of orchestrating and financing the pickets, driving up costs and damaging the company’s image. They called the verdict a clear affirmation of American law and emphasized the distinction between peaceful protests and illegal acts. Trey Cox, from the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, who led Energy Transfer’s legal team, told the jurors that “Greenpeace took a small, disorganized, local issue and exploited it to shut down the Dakota Access Pipeline and promote its own selfish agenda. They thought they’d never get caught.”
Greenpeace representatives, however, reiterated that the case poses a threat to freedom of expression and the right to dissent.
Among the courtroom observers was a group of attorneys calling themselves the Trial Monitoring Committee, who expressed many criticisms of the trial: first, for rejecting Greenpeace’s request to move the trial to Fargo, a city less influenced by the protests; second, for selecting jurors who had expressed negative opinions about the protests and, in some cases, had connections to the oil industry. The Trial Monitoring Committee included attorney Martin Garbus, an expert on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing freedom of expression, and Steven Donziger, famous for his long legal battle against Chevron over pollution in Ecuador.
Garbus called the verdict “the worst decision in a First Amendment case I have ever seen” and expressed concern that a future appeal to the Supreme Court could be used to overturn decades of case law protecting freedom of expression.
In short, the consequences of the verdict in North Dakota could jeopardize not only Greenpeace’s future but also that of all environmental organizations and the right to protest in the United States.
The oil industry represents a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, with the U.S. being one of the world’s largest oil producers. Companies operating in the sector, including giants like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips, wield significant influence not only over the economy but also over politics and environmental regulation.
Over the years, multinational corporations have faced a growing number of legal challenges and protests from activists demanding a transition to renewable energy sources.
In tandem to the litigation in the United States, Greenpeace International has launched a counter-lawsuit in the Netherlands against Energy Transfer. The action is based on a recent European Union directive aimed at counteracting abusive legal proceedings often used to discourage public participation and limit freedom of expression.
