Verdict Overview

A jury in North Dakota awarded Energy Transfer and its subsidiary over $660 million in a lawsuit against Greenpeace, sparked by protests against the Dakota Access crude oil pipeline. This ruling has sent shockwaves through environmental advocacy circles.

Energy Transfer hailed the decision as a “win… for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota”; however, environmental advocates view it as a significant setback for free speech and a hostile move against dissenters in the climate movement.

Reactions from Advocacy Groups

Jon Hinck, an environmental advocate, described the ruling as a “travesty of justice.” He, along with others, argues that the lawsuit constitutes a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), aimed at intimidating critics of fossil fuel initiatives.

Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace’s U.S. offices, emphasized the broader implications, stating, “This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations.” She pointed out the risks posed to First Amendment rights, asserting that corporate entities are increasingly seeking to suppress dissent through legal channels.

Legal Context and Implications

The New York Times reported that Greenpeace insisted it only played a minor role in protests organized by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The jury, however, found otherwise, reaching its decision after two days of deliberation at the Morton County courthouse.

Greenpeace International expressed its determination not to remain silent in the face of this legal loss. According to senior legal adviser Deepa Padmanabha, “We know that this fight is not over,” suggesting plans for an appeal.

Following the verdict, there were fears regarding the potential ramifications for Greenpeace, yet Padmanabha assured that their advocacy work would persist. “That’s the important message today,” she stated.

Concerns Raised by Legal Experts

An independent trial monitoring committee has criticized the legal proceedings, alleging violations of due process that prevented Greenpeace from mounting an adequate defense. Attorney Marty Garbus described the trial as “unfair,” stating, “In my six decades of legal practice, I have never witnessed a trial as unfair as the one against Greenpeace.” He predicts that the case’s outcome could resonate far beyond environmental protests, impacting demonstrations of all kinds.

Next Steps for Greenpeace

Greenpeace International general counsel Kristin Casper reiterated that Energy Transfer would not have the last word in this encounter. The organization is currently pursuing an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, inspired by new European Union directives against SLAPP suits.