On 19 March 2025, a jury in Mandan, N.D., found the environmental non-profit Greenpeace liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to the Texas-based pipeline company Energy Transfer. This decision comes at the end of years of litigation, three weeks of testimony, and two days of deliberations, and could leave Greenpeace facing $667 million in claimed and punitive damages.
The lawsuit named Greenpeace Inc., which is U.S.-based and organizes protests and campaigns; Greenpeace Fund, which awards environmental grants and provides fundraising; and Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International, which is the “mothership” for 25 Greenpeace groups around the world. The jury found that Greenpeace Inc. was liable for $404 million in damages in the case, with Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International liable for the remainder.
The verdict could cause Greenpeace Inc. to shut down its American operations. Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor for Greenpeace USA contends the verdict will have drastic consequences for environmental activism and free speech in the U.S. “We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech. Greenpeace will continue to do its part to fight for the protection of these fundamental rights for everyone,” said Padmanabha in a statement to 3E.
Energy Transfer’s Case
The Dakota Access Pipeline stretches 1,172 miles underground from the oil fields in North Dakota’s Bakken region to an oil terminal in Patoka, Ill. From its inception, the pipeline has been controversial. Energy Transfer initially planned for the pipeline to run about 10 miles north of Bismarck, North Dakota’s capital, but the Army Corps of Engineers ended up rejecting the proposal after pushback from the residents of the city who were concerned about the pipeline’s proximity to their water supply. A new plan that relocated part of the pipeline was proposed and eventually adopted. However, similar arguments to those made by the residents of Bismarck were shared by tribal leaders whose lands were near the new route and were rejected.
Energy Transfer’s complaint against Greenpeace stemmed from protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016, led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which argued that the pipeline’s new path threatened their water supply and violated sacred lands. The pipeline crosses Lake Oahe, a mile away from Standing Rock’s current tribal boundaries. Over several months, the movement attracted thousands of demonstrators, including representatives from over 100 tribes and numerous environmental organizations. Their actions did not stop the pipeline, which is currently active and pumping 750,000 barrels of oil per day.
Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of organizing and funding unlawful activities during the protests, including trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy, and defamation. The company claimed that Greenpeace falsely stated that the pipeline desecrated burial grounds and that Energy Transfer’s security forces used excessive force against protesters. The company argued that it was in the right and did what it could to end the protests peacefully.
During court proceedings, Energy Transfer Chairman Kelcy Warren testified that he traveled to North Dakota in 2016 when he was CEO of the company to negotiate with the Standing Rock Sioux tribal chair David Archambault II. Warren said he offered money and land to end the protests. Archambault, however, disputed Warren’s characterization of the meeting, stating that he had no authority to halt the protests, and that the movement had grown beyond Standing Rock’s leadership.
In the years since its construction, the pipeline has enjoyed broad support from Republican lawmakers in the state. In 2020, North Dakota’s Public Service Commission voted unanimously to expand the pipeline’s capacity, and in 2021 Governor Doug Burgum applauded the Army Corps of Engineer’s decision to allow the pipeline to continue operations despite the pipeline being under review for its environmental impact. Today, support from North Dakota lawmakers remains strong.
“The Dakota Access Pipeline was built with the latest, greatest technology and safety features, and the company went through all of the required regulatory and permitting steps. These facts are reaffirmed by today’s decision in court,” said U.S. Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) in a statement following the verdict. “This pipeline is important not only to North Dakota’s success as a global energy powerhouse, but our nation’s energy security.”
Greenpeace’s Defense
Greenpeace’s legal team rejected Energy Transfer’s claims, arguing that the organization merely expressed solidarity with the movement and that it did not coordinate any unlawful activities. The organization also argued that the alleged defamatory statements were widely reported in the media before the organization commented on them, and that Greenpeace should not be held accountable for any financial losses the company experienced.
Greenpeace also argued against the fairness of the lawsuit based on where the trial was held. The non-profit argued that the jury could be biased given that the case was tried in Morton County, a region deeply affected by the pipeline protests. Adding to concerns of bias, an anonymously published newspaper called Central ND News was widely distributed to Morton County residents last fall and appeared dedicated to portraying the Dakota Access Pipeline protests negatively. Greenpeace argued that the publication’s timing and content influenced the jury pool, calling it an attempt to manipulate public opinion. Because of these issues, Greenpeace attempted three separate times to change the location of the hearing, but all were denied.
“A jury drawn from a community heavily affected by the events Energy Transfer is attempting to blame on the defendants, shouldn’t bear the responsibility of deciding this case,” said Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel, Greenpeace International, when discussing the organization’s request for a venue change, which was denied by the North Dakota Supreme Court.
The Future for Greenpeace, Environmental Activism
While the jury in North Dakota was deliberating the case, Greenpeace International launched its own counter-lawsuit in Europe. The organization filed a lawsuit in the Netherlands against Energy Transfer, hoping to take advantage of the European Union’s 2024 directive against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages and costs incurred as a result of the North Dakota lawsuit.
In a statement to 3E, Kristin Casper, general counsel for Greenpeace International said, “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. We will see Energy Transfer in court this July in Amsterdam. We will not back down, we will not be silenced.”
Greenpeace was unable to use the same protections in North Dakota to avoid this lawsuit. According to the Institute for Free Speech, North Dakota is one of only 14 states in the U.S. that does not have any anti-SLAPP laws. Without anti-SLAPP protections, experts argue that defendants like Greenpeace must bear the full burden of expensive and time-consuming litigation regardless of the case’s merit, potentially facing years of proceedings and costs that can reach hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.
The Energy Transfer lawsuit against Greenpeace International, which claims its involvement was to sign an open letter along with over 500 others, “is a contender for most blatant SLAPP anywhere in the world,” said Simmons. “That makes it a good case on which to test the new EU anti-SLAPP Directives. If we prevail, it will send a message to corporate bullies that the age of impunity is ending.”
Energy Transfer pushed back against these claims, saying in a statement to 3E, “We are very pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, but this win is also for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace. It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law. That the disrupters have been held responsible is a win for all of us.”
—————————
Editor’s Note: 3E is expanding news coverage to provide customers with insights into topics that enable a safer, more sustainable world by protecting people, safeguarding products, and helping businesses grow. Breaking News articles keep you up-to-date with news as it’s happening.
