A North Dakota jury has ruled against environmental group Greenpeace, finding it liable for defamation and other claims over protests that took place in the state during 2016-2017. Under the verdict, Greenpeace must pay at least $660 million to pipeline company Energy Transfer. The decision has been condemned by numerous advocacy groups, who decry the ruling as a calculated attack on free speech and protest rights.
An Attack on Activism
Advocacy groups have been quick to criticize the ruling. Rebecca Brown, president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), issued a scathing statement calling the verdict “a weaponization of the legal system” and “an assault on free speech and protest rights.” Brown warned that the decision sets a dangerous precedent, stating, “This case is a textbook example of corporate weaponization of the legal system to silence protest and intimidate communities, particularly the Standing Rock Sioux and all indigenous peoples defending their land and water.”
READ MORE: Unredacted JFK Assassination Files Released: What Do They Reveal?
ClientEarth, a non-profit partner to Greenpeace, echoed these concerns on social media. The organization asserted that the verdict highlights an increasing trend of fossil fuel companies using litigation to intimidate critics and silence dissent. “No organization that challenges the polluting industries is safe,” the statement read, suggesting that this ruling could have a chilling effect on environmental activism across the country.
Industry and Political Reactions
Energy Transfer’s counsel, Trey Cox, defended the verdict, arguing that Greenpeace’s actions were unlawful and that the damages awarded were justified. “It is also a day of celebration for the constitution, the state of North Dakota, and Energy Transfer,” Cox stated following the decision.
Republican Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota also celebrated the outcome on social media. In a post on X, he wrote: “Today, justice has been done with Greenpeace and its radical environmentalist buddies who encouraged destructive behavior during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests with their defamatory and false claims about the pipeline.”
Concerns Over ‘Lawfare’
Critics have described the case as a classic example of a SLAPP—Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation—a tactic increasingly used by corporations and wealthy individuals to wear down and silence critics through costly litigation. International environmental organization 350.org called the verdict “devastating,” warning that it sends a dangerous message: that fossil fuel giants can weaponize the courts to silence grassroots activism.
Janet Alkire, tribal chair for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, condemned the ruling as an attempt to “silence our Tribe about the truth of what happened at Standing Rock.” She added, “The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not be silenced.”
Environmental watchdog EarthRights also joined the chorus of criticism, emphasizing that the Dakota Access Pipeline protests were “overwhelmingly peaceful” and that this legal action is part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent against fossil fuel extraction.
Legal Implications and the Road Ahead
Legal experts suggest that the verdict is emblematic of a broader trend, where corporations use civil litigation as a tool of intimidation, regardless of the underlying merits of the case. The ruling, while not declaring the market a duopoly, indicates that Greenpeace’s actions have been deemed sufficiently damaging by the jury to warrant enormous financial penalties.
Greenpeace has announced its intention to appeal the decision. Given that North Dakota does not have an appellate level court, the appeal will proceed directly to the state supreme court. Many legal observers believe that Greenpeace has a strong case for overturning the verdict, arguing that the litigation was frivolous and aimed solely at silencing dissent.
A Chilling Effect on Activism
Advocacy groups fear that this ruling could have far-reaching consequences beyond this particular case. Brice Böhmer, climate and environment lead at Transparency International, warned, “In the face of a climate emergency, it is unconscionable that environmental defenders are being prosecuted in this manner.” Such cases, he argues, risk chilling free speech and hindering the public’s ability to hold polluting industries accountable.
The verdict comes at a time when public protest and grassroots activism are increasingly vital in the battle against climate change and environmental degradation. By imposing such a steep financial penalty on Greenpeace, critics contend that the fossil fuel industry is setting a precedent that could deter future protests and legal challenges against corporate practices.
Government and Regulatory Context
In response to the ruling, federal and state governments have yet to announce any policy changes aimed at protecting protest rights or curbing what some see as “lawfare.” However, the broader debate about the balance between corporate power and public participation is intensifying. As environmental and indigenous rights continue to be at the forefront of public discourse, this verdict may prompt lawmakers to consider new safeguards against the misuse of litigation to silence dissent.
Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment in Environmental Activism
The North Dakota verdict against Greenpeace is being hailed by advocacy groups as a dangerous misuse of the legal system—a calculated attempt to suppress free speech and stifle grassroots activism. With the ruling demanding at least $660 million in damages, critics warn that it could have a chilling effect on environmental protests and empower other corporations to use similar tactics.
As Greenpeace prepares to appeal the decision, the case serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing battle between environmental advocates and powerful corporate interests. In an era defined by urgent climate challenges, the ability to protest and speak out against environmental injustices is more critical than ever. Whether this ruling will ultimately change the legal landscape for activist groups remains to be seen, but its impact is already resonating across communities committed to defending the planet.
