Last week, a jury in North Dakota found an environmentalist organization guilty of defamation in a yearslong battle with one of the largest pipeline companies in the United States. After a two-day deliberation, the jury awarded $667 million in damages to Texas-based pipeline company Energy Transfer and Dakota Access LLC after it sued Greenpeace for its role in the protests that occurred nearly a decade ago over the Dakota Access Pipeline.
The jury in Mandan, North Dakota, was given a laundry list of questions regarding Greenpeace’s involvement in the protest — initially led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe — including if the group was liable for defamation, trespassing, conspiracy, etc. The Native American tribe has long been outspoken against the pipeline, arguing that it would be a threat to their water supply and sacred lands.
In the lawsuit, Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of harming the company’s reputation, encouraging vandalism to its equipment and putting its employees in harm’s way. “Its organizers trained protesters and even brought lockboxes they used to chain themselves to construction equipment. Protesters lobbed human feces and burning logs at security officers and vandalized construction equipment,” per The Wall Street Journal.
However, since the verdict, Greenpeace has cried innocence, saying its involvement in the protests was misrepresented, and pledged to appeal the decision.
“What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer’s blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. And while they also tried to distort the truth about Greenpeace’s role in the protests, we instead reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to non-violence in every action we take,” Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace USA, told The Washington Post. “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.”
Legal representation for Energy Transfer also commented on the issue of First Amendment rights. Trey Cox, lead lawyer for the defendants, argued that the actions made by Greenpeace were not lawful. “Peaceful protest is an inherent American right,” he said. “However, violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable,” per The New York Times.
Vicki Granado, a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer, added that “this win is really 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.”
Will the lawsuit deter future protests?
The decision was less surprising in part because Greenpeace had initially and unsuccessfully tried to move the case due to fears of biased jurors living and being employed in the oil production region. The protests occurred between 2016 and 2017, involving monthlong encampments, and at times, protesters turned violent, creating a harsh environment for the people who lived in the area.
Since the decision, many news outlets have speculated on how it will influence future actions by protesters and past national movements, such as the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 and the Anti-Israel college protests following the Oct. 7, 2023, attack, viewing them as comparable offenses in the name of activism.
James B. Meigs, Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute, said one similarity between these protests is that they all had “hybrid protests,” in which the majority of peaceful demonstrators are joined by a lesser amount of conditioned agitators who turn the events toward violence.
“Energy Transfer’s suit against Greenpeace represents the first major success in exposing and penalizing the putatively legitimate nonprofits that funnel money and material support to the lawbreakers embedding themselves in these hybrid protests,” he wrote in City Journal. “If the enormous verdict survives the inevitable appeals, it will be a major shot across the bows of progressive organizations that quietly foment political mayhem while maintaining plausible deniability.”
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board shared a similar sentiment, writing that Greenpeace got what it deserved:
“If the verdict deters other self-righteous outfits from aiding violent protests, including those against Israel, so much the better,” they wrote. “The left-wing group says the lawsuit is retribution for exercising its First Amendment speech and protest rights. But there’s no First Amendment right to defame or destroy.”
Environmentalists interpreted the verdict differently.
Beyond Fossil Fuels, a coalition of civil society organizations posted on social media that ordering GreenPeace to pay millions in damages was “unacceptable and sets a dangerous precedent. #Fossilfuel corporations cannot and will not sue activists into submission.”
Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told The Washington Post that though the verdict was unlikely to deter political activists, it could prevent them from actively protesting against fossil fuel projects while they’re under construction.
“It sends a chilling message to physical climate protests — anything that actually disrupts fossil fuel production,” Gerrard said.