A high-stakes civil trial commenced today in Mandan, North Dakota, as Energy Transfer, the developer behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, seeks $300 million in damages from environmental organization Greenpeace USA. The lawsuit alleges that Greenpeace engaged in defamation, trespassing, and incitement of criminal activities during the 2016-2017 protests against the pipeline’s construction.
Energy Transfer contends that Greenpeace disseminated misleading information about the pipeline’s environmental impact and safety, leading to significant financial losses and reputational damage. The company asserts that Greenpeace’s actions were part of a coordinated effort to delay construction and incite illegal activities among protesters.
The Dakota Access Pipeline, a 1,172-mile project, was designed to transport crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois. Its route near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation sparked widespread protests, with Indigenous groups and environmental activists expressing concerns over potential threats to water sources and sacred sites. The protests garnered international attention, leading to numerous arrests and heightened tensions between law enforcement and demonstrators.
Greenpeace maintains that its involvement in the protests was within the bounds of lawful and peaceful advocacy. The organization argues that the lawsuit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation , intended to intimidate and silence critics of the pipeline project. Greenpeace’s legal team emphasizes that the claims are baseless and pose a significant threat to free speech and the right to protest in the United States.
This trial follows a similar lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer in 2017, which was dismissed by a federal court in North Dakota in 2019. The previous case alleged that Greenpeace and other environmental groups engaged in racketeering and defamation; however, the court found insufficient evidence to support these claims. Despite this dismissal, Energy Transfer has persisted with legal action, now focusing on Greenpeace USA in a state court.
The outcome of this trial carries significant implications for environmental advocacy and free speech rights. A ruling in favor of Energy Transfer could set a precedent for corporations to use litigation as a tool to deter activism and suppress dissent. Conversely, a decision supporting Greenpeace could reinforce protections for organizations engaged in environmental and social justice campaigns.
