Lawsuit over Dakota Access Pipeline protests could bankrupt Greenpeace

• Greenpeace started its trial on Monday, Feb. 24, after a lawsuit was filed by Energy Transfer. The group claims Greenpeace engaged in defamation, conspiracy and other unlawful actions during protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
• Greenpeace denies the allegations, saying it only supported demonstrations led by Native American activists.
• Damages being sought reportedly total $300 million, which could bankrupt Greenpeace.

Full Story

Greenpeace began its trial on Monday, Feb. 24, for a legal battle that could bankrupt the environmental organization. The case stems from a 2017 lawsuit filed by the company Energy Transfer. The company accused Greenpeace of masterminding protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.

What is this lawsuit about?

Energy Transfer alleges Greenpeace engaged in defamation, conspiracy and other unlawful actions that harmed its business during the pipeline’s development. Greenpeace denies these allegations, asserting that it played only a supporting role in demonstrations led primarily by Native American activists.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

The trial is set to take place in a North Dakota state court and is expected to last five weeks. According to Greenpeace, the damages sought in the case total $300 million. That amount is more than 10 times the organization’s annual budget.

How are both sides responding?

Energy Transfer initially filed the lawsuit in federal court under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The law is designed to combat organized crime. However, a federal judge dismissed the case, ruling that the allegations did not meet the legal standard required under the statute. The company then refiled the lawsuit in state court with a revised complaint.

Greenpeace argues that the lawsuit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). The term is used to describe legal actions alleged to suppress activism by imposing significant legal costs on defendants.

In response, Greenpeace has also filed a countersuit against Energy Transfer in Amsterdam, citing European laws that provide protections against SLAPP cases.

What happens next?

Greenpeace’s interim executive director, Sushma Raman, has stated that the case is a test of First Amendment rights, with the potential to set a precedent for how protest movements and advocacy organizations are treated under U.S. law.

“This case is a prime example of corporations abusing the legal system to silence critics and keep their operations secret,” Raman said. “It is also a critical test of the future of the First Amendment – both freedom of speech and peaceful protest – under the Trump Administration and beyond.”

Get up to speed on the stories leading the day every weekday morning. Sign up for the newsletter today!

Learn more about our emails. Unsubscribe anytime.

Enter your email for newsletter updates Subscribe

By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.

Meanwhile, Energy Transfer said its “lawsuit against Greenpeace is about them not following the law. It is not about free speech as they are trying to claim. We support the rights of all Americans to express their opinions and lawfully protest. However, when it is not done in accordance with our laws, we have a legal system to deal with that.”