A Texas pipeline company, Energy Transfer, is set to take its lawsuit against Greenpeace to trial in North Dakota on Monday, February 26, 2025. The lawsuit, which stems from protests against the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), accuses Greenpeace of defamation, disruptions, and attacks on its operations. The trial is expected to last five weeks in the state court of Mandan, North Dakota.
The legal action originates from the 2016 and 2017 protests concerning the oil pipeline's proposed crossing of the Missouri River, located upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation. The tribe has consistently voiced concerns that the pipeline would endanger their water supply. The protests led to significant unrest, with thousands of demonstrators voicing opposition to the project. Among them, hundreds were arrested.
The lawsuit was filed by Energy Transfer, the Dallas-based parent company of Dakota Access, against Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and their funding arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc. The pipeline company claims that Greenpeace played a key role in hindering construction by promoting protests and facilitating trespassing, vandalism, and violence. It also alleges that Greenpeace made defamatory statements about Energy Transfer, and that the protests caused delays, leading to an increase in costs of at least $300 million (€286.5 million).
Greenpeace, a global environmental organization founded over 50 years ago, has consistently defended its actions and free speech rights. The organization argues that this lawsuit poses a significant threat to both free speech and the right to protest. Sushma Raman, Interim Executive Director of Greenpeace USA, described the case as a “critical test” for the future of the First Amendment under the current administration and beyond.
“This trial is a critical test of the future of the First Amendment, both freedom of speech and peaceful protest, under the Trump administration and beyond,” Raman stated during a press briefing. “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 also highlighted its role in training protesters in nonviolent direct action and de-escalation techniques. Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha noted that Greenpeace USA had been instrumental in providing “nonviolent, direct-action training” to protesters during the DAPL demonstrations.
“We have been teaching safety and de-escalation, yet Energy Transfer argues that anyone involved in training at a protest should be held accountable for the actions of every individual present,” Padmanabha said. “If successful, this kind of tactic could have a serious chilling effect on anyone who might consider participating in a protest.”
While Greenpeace defends its position, Energy Transfer counters that its lawsuit is not about silencing free speech but about holding organizations accountable for illegal actions. Vicki Granado, a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer, stated, “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.”
In addition to the lawsuit in North Dakota, Greenpeace International has initiated a counterclaim against Energy Transfer in the District Court of Amsterdam. The organization seeks compensation for the costs and damages incurred as a result of Energy Transfer’s legal actions, which Greenpeace claims are without merit.
The Dakota Access Pipeline, which became operational in June 2017, continues to be a point of contention. The project, which aims to transport oil from North Dakota to Illinois, has faced opposition from various environmental groups and Indigenous rights activists who argue that the pipeline poses serious environmental and social risks. The protests in 2016 and 2017 became a symbol of broader struggles over Indigenous rights and climate change.
Energy Transfer, which has seen significant growth since its founding in 1996, operates more than 200,000 kilometers of pipelines across the United States. Despite the protests, the DAPL has been transporting oil since its completion, and Energy Transfer remains steadfast in its legal battle.
As the lawsuit moves forward, both Energy Transfer and Greenpeace are bracing for the potential long-term implications of the trial. The case is seen as a pivotal moment not only for the future of the DAPL but also for the rights of environmental organizations to protest and speak out against corporate interests.
The outcome of the trial in North Dakota will have far-reaching consequences for environmental activism and corporate accountability. Whether the court will rule in favor of Energy Transfer or allow Greenpeace’s activism to stand will shape the future of protest movements in the United States and beyond.
The defamation lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer against Greenpeace over the Dakota Access Pipeline protests raises significant concerns about the balance between corporate interests and free speech. On one hand, Energy Transfer claims Greenpeace's involvement in the protests disrupted its operations and caused millions in damages. Greenpeace argues that its role was in line with its mission to advocate for environmental protection and support peaceful protest rights.
This case touches on the broader issue of whether corporations can use legal action to silence dissent, potentially chilling free speech and protest movements. It also highlights the ongoing tension between large energy projects and environmental activism. While companies have the right to protect their interests, the right to protest and voice opposition is a fundamental part of democratic societies. The outcome of this trial could have lasting implications on the future of activism and corporate accountability in the United States.
