A North Dakota jury has imposed a staggering verdict against the environmental group Greenpeace, ordering it to pay more than $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, a Texas-based oil company. This ruling comes in the wake of accusations that Greenpeace played a significant role in one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in U.S. history, specifically regarding the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline.
The verdict, reached on March 19, 2025, followed two full days of deliberation by a nine-person jury in Mandan, North Dakota. They found Greenpeace, along with its entities Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund Inc., liable for defamation, trespass, conspiracy, and other claims related to protests that took place from April 2016 to February 2017. The protests were primarily led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which opposed the pipeline due to concerns over environmental protections and Indigenous rights.
Energy Transfer alleged that Greenpeace had orchestrated an "unlawful and violent scheme" designed to inflict financial harm on the company. In his closing arguments, Energy Transfer attorney Trey Cox claimed Greenpeace's actions resulted in financial losses between $265 million to $340 million. The jury ultimately sided with Energy Transfer, issuing damages that included punitive measures exceeding $400 million in total.
Greenpeace vowed to appeal the decision, with its Interim Executive Director, Sushma Raman, stating, "The reality is you can't bankrupt a movement. This movement exists all around the world: individuals who want a cleaner, greener planet, protecting oceans, forests, and land." This reflects the organization's resilience, as they remain committed to their environmental mission despite the potential financial blow from the verdict.
The Dakota Access Pipeline became a flashpoint for environmental activism during Donald Trump’s administration, with the protests attracting more than 10,000 demonstrators, including members of over 200 Native American tribes, military veterans, and notable public figures. The sit-ins and demonstrations, which featured an extensive encampment near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, culminated in a forcible clearing by law enforcement in February 2017. Although the pipeline began operation that same year, it simultaneously faced continued legal challenges and debates over its environmental impact.
Greenpeace’s counterargument hinges on their assertion that they were not the leaders behind the protests but rather supporters of the Indigenous-led movements. The organization has launched its own legal actions against Energy Transfer, claiming the lawsuit represents a significant threat to free speech, amid accusations of venue shopping to suppress dissent against powerful corporations. Kristin Casper, General Counsel for Greenpeace International, remarked, "Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight. We’re just getting started with our anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest." A hearing is scheduled for the counter-suit in the Netherlands on July 2, 2025.
This case has drawn attention not only for its financial implications but also for its potential chilling effect on free speech and the rights to protest in the United States. Noting the implications of the ruling, legal experts have underscored the importance of protecting free speech and peaceful protest rights, especially when driven by environmental and social justice movements.
Michael Burger, a lawyer at Columbia University, remarked on the ongoing threats to dissent in such cases, "This kind of lawsuit...should be subjected to higher levels of scrutiny that come with anti-SLAPP legislation." Currently, only a minority of U.S. states have protections against what is classified as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Unfortunately, North Dakota is not among them, making it a potential battleground for major corporations to silence activism.
As the dust settles on this controversial verdict, the implications for Greenpeace and other advocacy groups are profound. The environmental organization has stated unequivocally that it plans to continue its activism and advocacy efforts. Deepa Padmanabha, a senior legal advisor for Greenpeace, articulated, "That’s the really important message today...the fight against Big Oil is not over. We know that the law and the truth are on our side." This defiance is crucial as Greenpeace positions itself against what it perceives as corporate overreach and an attack on essential civil rights.
This case symbolizes not only a legal confrontation but also highlights the ongoing struggle between environmental advocacy and corporate interests in the U.S. As energy companies like Energy Transfer push back against protests with significant legal and financial claims, the future of activism, particularly in relation to Indigenous rights and environmental justice, remains precarious. The broader dynamics of this battle will undoubtedly continue to unfold in the courts, in public opinion, and, most importantly, on the ground where activism meets industry.
