A Texas pipeline company’s lawsuit accusing Greenpeace of defamation, disruptions and attacks during protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline goes to trial in North Dakota on Monday, in a case the environmental advocacy organization says threatens free speech rights and its very future.
The lawsuit stems from the protests in 2016 and 2017 over the oil pipeline’s planned Missouri River crossing, upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has long argued that the pipeline threatens its water supply. Of the thousands of people who protested the project, hundreds were arrested.
Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access allege trespass, nuisance, defamation and other offences by Netherlands-based Greenpeace International and its American branch, Greenpeace USA. The $300 million US lawsuit also names the group’s funding arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc.
The jury trial in state court in Mandan, N.D., is scheduled to last five weeks.
What are the details of the case?
Dallas-based Energy Transfer alleges Greenpeace tried to delay construction of the pipeline, defamed the companies behind it, and co-ordinated trespassing, vandalism and violence by pipeline protesters. The lawsuit seeks millions of dollars in damages.
The Dakota Access Pipeline was completed and has been transporting oil since June 2017.
U.S. tariff threats are fuelling a push to revisit pipeline projects to boost Canada’s economic self-reliance. CBC’s Sam Samson looks at the shifting dialogue and what’s standing in the way.
Greenpeace International said it shouldn’t be named in the lawsuit because it is distinct from the two U.S.-based Greenpeace entities, operates outside the U.S., and its employees were never in North Dakota or involved with the protests.
Greenpeace USA said the plaintiffs have failed to back up their claims in the years since the protests.
Earlier in February, a judge denied motions by Greenpeace to throw out or limit parts of the case.
What is Greenpeace’s position?
“If we lose, Greenpeace USA could face financial ruin, ending over 50 years of environmental activism,” the group has said in a statement.
Representatives of the environmental organization contend that Energy Transfer just wants to silence oil industry critics.
“This trial is a critical test of the future of the First Amendment, both freedom of speech and peaceful protest, under the [Donald] Trump administration and beyond,” Greenpeace USA interim executive director Sushma Raman told reporters. “A bad ruling in this case could put our rights and freedoms in jeopardy for all of us, whether we are journalists, protesters or anyone who wants to engage in public debate.”
Greenpeace USA helped support “nonviolent, direct-action training” on safety and de-escalation at the protests, senior legal adviser Deepa Padmanabha said.
Energy Transfer is arguing that “anyone engaged in a training at a protest should be held responsible for the actions of every person at that protest,” Padmanabha said. “So it’s pretty easy to see how, if successful, this kind of tactic could have a serious chilling effect on anyone who might consider participating in a protest.”
Earlier in February, Greenpeace International filed an anti-intimidation suit in the District Court of Amsterdam against Energy Transfer, saying the company acted wrongfully and should pay costs and damages resulting from its “meritless” litigation. In 2024 the European Union passed rules aimed at helping journalists, rights activists and public watchdogs defend themselves against lawsuits intended to harass or silence them, including by tying them up in expensive litigation.
The brewing trade war between Canada and the United States over tariffs has sparked new interest in abandoned pipeline projects like Energy East, which would have delivered oil to Ontario and Quebec, and Northern Gateway, which would have run to British Columbia’s northern coast. A new poll from the Angus Reid Institute shows public support for the idea is growing and politicians have mused about reviving the projects, but one expert says pipeline companies might not be so keen on the idea.
What does Energy Transfer say?
An Energy Transfer spokesperson said the lawsuit is about Greenpeace 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,” Energy Transfer spokesperson Vicki Granado said in a statement.
The company filed a similar case in federal court in 2017, which a judge dismissed in 2019. Soon after, Energy Transfer filed the state court lawsuit now headed to trial.
Energy Transfer launched in 1996 with 20 employees and 320 kilometres of natural gas pipelines. Today the 11,000-employee company owns and operates over 200,000 kilometres of pipelines and related facilities.
