In a landmark verdict, a North Dakota jury has ordered Greenpeace to pay Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, more than $660 million in damages. This decision stems from a lawsuit alleging defamation, trespass, and civil conspiracy related to the 2016-2017 protests against the pipelineโs construction.
The Dakota Access Pipeline, spanning 1,172 miles from North Dakota to Illinois, has been a focal point of controversy since its construction. The protests, which drew thousands of supporters at their peak, were led by Native American groups concerned about the pipelineโs potential impact on their water supply and sacred lands.
Greenpeace was accused of playing a significant role in organizing and supporting these protests, which included acts of violence and vandalism. Energy Transfer filed a lawsuit seeking to hold Greenpeace accountable for damages resulting from the demonstrations.
The Verdict
After two days of deliberation, the nine-person jury found Greenpeace liable for the following claims:
- Defamation: Greenpeace was accused of spreading misinformation about the pipeline project.
- Trespass and Nuisance: The company alleged that Greenpeace encouraged protesters to trespass on private property.
- Civil Conspiracy: Energy Transfer claimed Greenpeace coordinated with other groups to disrupt pipeline construction.
The damages awarded totalled nearly $666.9 million, with Greenpeace USA responsible for the bulk of the payment.
Reactions
- Greenpeace: The organization has vowed to appeal the decision, stating it threatens free speech and peaceful protest. Greenpeace International General Counsel Kristin Casper emphasized, โWe will not back down, we will not be silenced.โ
- Energy Transfer: The company celebrated the verdict as a victory for law-abiding citizens affected by the protests. Attorney Trey Cox stated that the verdict sent a message that abusive protest tactics would be held accountable.
Expert Opinions
- Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, believes the verdict could chill environmental activism and encourage similar lawsuits in other states.
- Sushma Raman, Interim Executive Director of Greenpeace Inc., expressed concern over the precedent this case sets for free speech and protest rights.
SLAPP Lawsuit Concerns
Critics argue this case exemplifies a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) designed to silence dissent through costly litigation. Greenpeace has counter-sued Energy Transfer in a Dutch court under the EUโs anti-SLAPP directive.
This verdict may encourage other corporations to pursue similar legal action against activist groups. The outcome could influence future protest strategies and the legal landscape surrounding environmental activism.
The juryโs decision in the Dakota Access Pipeline case represents a significant legal challenge to environmental groups and their protest activities. As Greenpeace prepares to appeal, the environmental and legal communities watch closely to see how this case might shape future activism and corporate responses. What are your thoughts on this verdict and its implications for free speech and environmental protest? Share your perspective below and subscribe for more insights into ecological and legal developments.
