Jury Orders Greenpeace to Pay $660 Million Over Dakota Access Protests

MANDAN, N.D. (AP) — A jury awarded over $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline, in a case against environmental group Greenpeace stemming from protests nearly a decade ago. The verdict, delivered Wednesday after more than two days of deliberations, found Greenpeace liable for defamation, trespass, and other claims related to the protests that garnered nationwide attention.

Energy Transfer, based in Dallas and valued at nearly $70 billion, accused Greenpeace of inciting protests against the controversial pipeline, alleging that the group orchestrated a “misinformation campaign” that led to disruptions in construction. The multiple claims covered actions taken during protests by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and allied activists in 2016 and 2017.

Greenpeace, which denied all allegations, stated that the lawsuits threaten the right to peaceful protest and free speech. Following the jury’s decision, Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha reaffirmed the group’s resolve. “What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer’s blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,” Padmanabha said. “We will continue to fight for the protection of these fundamental rights for everyone.”

The jury issued the verdict at Morton County Courthouse, where the trial took place. According to calculations from Greenpeace, the damages are allocated with Greenpeace USA responsible for nearly $404 million, while other entities, including Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund Inc., were ordered to pay about $131 million each.

Energy Transfer hailed the verdict as a victory for law-abiding citizens. Trey Cox, the company’s attorney, stated, “This verdict clearly conveys that when the right to peacefully protest is abused in a lawless manner, those actions will be held accountable.” The company expressed satisfaction that the jury recognized the difference between free speech and unlawful actions that obstructed construction activities.

Greenpeace has voiced intentions to appeal the ruling, describing the lawsuit as an attempt to silence dissenting voices through so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). “The fight against Big Oil is not over today,” said Kristin Casper, general counsel for Greenpeace International. “We will see Energy Transfer in court this July in the Netherlands.”

Legal analysts and First Amendment advocates have expressed concern that the case could set a precedent with potential chilling effects on activism and free speech. Marty Garbus, an attorney monitoring the trial, remarked, “In my six decades of legal practice, I have never witnessed a trial as unfair as the one against Greenpeace.”

Compounding concerns over trial fairness, potential jurors demonstrated bias against the protests during jury selection, with many possessing connections to the fossil fuel industry. Observers noted that outside influences may have shaped perceptions, including misleading mailers targeting local residents prior to the case.

Meanwhile, ongoing tensions remain surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline, which continues to be contested by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Tribal Chairperson Janet Alkire emphasized, “The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not be silenced,” highlighting the tribe’s leadership during the protests and its ongoing fight against perceived threats to their land and water resources.

Energy Transfer’s case blossomed from protests opposing the pipeline’s construction, which the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe argued endangered its water supply and ancestral lands. The pipeline, operational since mid-2017, transports approximately 5% of the United States’ daily crude oil production.

As the legal battle unfolds, the implications of this case on future activism, particularly environmental protests led by Indigenous communities, remain a focal point of national discourse.