A jury in North Dakota has found Greenpeace liable in a defamation lawsuit by Energy Transfer, an oil company based in Dallas, Texas. Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace in state court over protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline that took place from April 2016 to February 2017.
By Paige Bennett
Energy Transfer argued that the protests sought to defame the oil company. Energy Transfer also argued that Greenpeace’s role in the protests caused further damages and disruptions. In the case, Energy Transfer’s lawyer Trey Cox asked the jury to award $265 million to $340 million for Greenpeace’s actions plus additional damages, BBC reported.
“This win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace. It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law,” Energy Transfer said, as reported by CBS News.
Greenpeace has argued that the lawsuit is a hit to free speech and that it did not lead the protests, but supported Indigenous-led efforts. As CBS News reported, the pipeline was planned to go through Lake Oahe, near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe argued that the pipeline violated treaty rights.
“What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer’s blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,” Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor for Greenpeace USA, said in a statement. “And while they also tried to distort the truth about Greenpeace’s role in the protests, we instead reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to non-violence in every action we take. To be clear, Greenpeace’s story is not the story of Standing Rock. Our story is how an organization like Greenpeace USA can support critical fights to protect communities most impacted by the climate crisis, as well as continued attacks on Indigenous sovereignty.”
The jury’s decision has raised alarms over the First Amendment, especially for climate and environmental protests.
“This jury verdict is obviously a huge and monumental milestone in the case because of what the implications are, not just for Greenpeace, but for other advocates,” Jennifer Safstrom, director of the Stanton Foundation First Amendment Clinic at Vanderbilt University, told NPR. “Advocacy defendants will now potentially face huge liability in possibly similar litigation.”
Greenpeace plans to appeal the verdict in the North Dakota Supreme Court and accused Energy Transfer of filing a SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) lawsuit. Thirty-five states and Washington, DC have anti-SLAPP laws, but North Dakota does not.
In February 2025, the organization warned that this lawsuit could lead it to bankruptcy, further silencing it from protests. At that time, Greenpeace reported that Energy Transfer was pursuing $300 million in damages, totaling 10 times Greenpeace’s annual budget. The final verdict of a liability of $660 million adds further strain.
“This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations,” Sushma Raman, the interim executive director at Greenpeace, Inc., said in a statement. “It’s part of a renewed push by corporations to weaponize our courts to silence dissent. We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech.”
Greenpeace International sued Energy Transfer in February 2024 in Dutch court under the European Union’s anti-SLAPP directive. The organization is seeking damages and costs incurred after over seven years of lawsuits from Energy Transfer.
“Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight. We’re just getting started with our anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest,” Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International General Counsel, said in a statement. “We will see Energy Transfer in court this July in the Netherlands.”
