Bismarck, North Dakota — Environmental nonprofit Greenpeace is fighting for its survival in a high-stakes trial that could force it into bankruptcy, as energy giant Energy Transfer seeks $300 million in damages over protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The trial, which began jury selection Monday in Morton County, North Dakota, could set legal precedents threatening free speech and activism.
Contents
A landmark trial in North Dakota could bankrupt Greenpeace, one of the world’s oldest environmental groups, after energy firm Energy Transfer accused it of orchestrating “violent” protests that delayed the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace denies leading the protests and calls the lawsuit a “SLAPP” (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) aimed at silencing critics. Here’s what’s at stake.
The trial could reshape U.S. activism laws and determine whether corporations can sue nonprofits into oblivion over protests.
Overview:
- $300 million lawsuit seeks damages for alleged delays to DAPL.
- Greenpeace’s defense: It provided “nonviolent training” but did not lead protests.
- Concerns: Trial in oil-rich North Dakota may lack neutrality.
Pipeline Protests and “Water Is Life”
The Dakota Access Pipeline, a 1,170-mile oil pipeline from North Dakota to Illinois, sparked global protests in 2016–2017 after the Standing Rock Sioux Group opposed its route near their water source. Thousands rallied under the “Water Is Life” slogan, including 200+ Groups, veterans, and celebrities. Protests ended in 2017 after President Trump approved the project.
Legal Battles
- 2017: Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace under RICO (racketeering) laws, but a federal judge dismissed the case.
- 2019: Energy Transfer filed this state-level lawsuit, accusing Greenpeace of “unlawful and violent schemes”.
- 2024: Greenpeace countersued Energy Transfer in Dutch court, alleging abuse of legal systems.
The Lawsuit’s Claims
Energy Transfer alleges Greenpeace:
- Delayed pipeline construction, causing $300 million in losses.
- Incited violence against workers and infrastructure.
- Defamed the company through protests.
Greenpeace’s Defense
- It provided “nonviolent training” but did not lead protests.
- The lawsuit threatens free speech and sets a dangerous precedent.
- North Dakota’s oil ties may bias the trial.
Trial Logistics
- Location: Morton County, North Dakota (begun February 25, 2025).
- Duration: Expected 5 weeks.
- Entities Named: Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace Fund Inc, and Greenpeace International.
Expert Opinions
- Legal analysts say the case could criminalize protest support, chilling activism.
- Energy Transfer claims it is “upholding the law,” not targeting free speech.
Data-Driven Insights
- The $300 million claim exceeds Greenpeace’s annual budget (approx. $25 million).
- Over 10,000 protesters joined the 2016–2017 Standing Rock camps.
Future Predictions
- A Greenpeace loss could bankrupt the group and inspire copycat lawsuits.
- A win might strengthen protections against SLAPP suits.
Conclusion
This trial is a clash between corporate power and environmental activism, with implications far beyond North Dakota. If Energy Transfer prevails, nonprofits could face ruinous legal risks for supporting protests. What do you think—should corporations be able to sue activists into silence? Share your thoughts below.
Final Thought:
As climate battles intensify, will courts protect free speech or corporate interests? The answer could reshape activism for decades.
