Greenpeace Found Liable for Protest Damages in Dakota Pipeline Case

MANDAN, N.D. (AP) — A jury in North Dakota on Wednesday found Greenpeace and its related organizations liable for damages linked to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, awarding the pipeline company hundreds of millions in damages.

The unanimous verdict followed a three-week trial in which the nine-person jury deliberated for two days before ruling in favor of Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners and its subsidiary Dakota Access. The case centered on allegations of defamation and other claims stemming from protests that occurred in 2016 and 2017 near the Missouri River crossing, which is upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation.

Energy Transfer filed the lawsuit in 2019, claiming that Greenpeace incited protests and spread misinformation that caused the company financial harm. The jury’s decision is seen as a significant setback for Greenpeace, which contends the case is a threat to free speech and the right to peaceful protest.

During the trial, plaintiffs’ attorney Trey Cox argued that Greenpeace orchestrated a campaign to disrupt the pipeline’s construction by hiring outsiders, providing protest supplies, and making false statements about the project. However, attorneys for Greenpeace contended that their organization had minimal involvement in the protests and that the delays facing Energy Transfer were unrelated to Greenpeace’s actions.

“Greenpeace will continue to do its part to fight for the protection of these fundamental rights for everyone,” said Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace’s senior legal adviser, emphasizing the potential implications of the ruling on future activism.

Greenpeace International, along with its U.S. affiliates and funding arm, were central to the lawsuit, with Energy Transfer seeking approximately $300 million. The environmental group expressed concern that the ruling could financially cripple its U.S. operations.

The proceedings were marred by allegations of jury bias given the political landscape of Mandan, a region with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry. Potential jurors’ connections to the industry raised questions about their ability to impartially judge the case. Supporters of Greenpeace claim these factors contributed to a courtroom environment that inhibited the organization’s ability to present a comprehensive defense.

“This is one of the most important cases in American history,” said Marty Garbus, a First Amendment attorney observing the trial. “The law that can come down in this case can affect any demonstration, religious or political. It’s far bigger than the environmental movement.”

The trial’s outcome is likely to incite further discussion regarding the balance between corporate interests and environmental advocacy. In response to the jury’s ruling, Greenpeace representatives noted that they plan to appeal and pursue additional legal action against what they describe as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) intended to intimidate critics.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which has long opposed the Dakota Access Pipeline, voiced their disappointment with the verdict. Janet Alkire, the tribal chairperson, stated, ‘The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not be silenced,’ emphasizing the tribe’s ongoing concerns about the environmental risks posed by the pipeline.

As this story continues to develop, it underscores a critical intersection of environmental advocacy, corporate power, and free speech rights in America.