A court ordered Greenpeace to pay a pipeline company $660M. What happens next?
Experts called the verdict “beyond punitive.” The organization plans to appeal and has already filed a countersuit in Europe.
A jury in North Dakota ordered Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace in 2019, alleging that it had orchestrated a vast conspiracy against the company by organizing historic protests on the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in 2016 and 2017.
In its lawsuit, Energy Transfer Partners accused three Greenpeace entities — two in the U.S. and one based in Amsterdam — of violating North Dakota trespassing and defamation laws, and of coordinating protests aimed to stop the 1,172-mile pipeline from transporting oil from North Dakota’s Bakken oil fields to a terminal in Illinois. Greenpeace maintained it played only a minor supporting role in the Indigenous-led movement.
“This was obviously a test case meant to scare others from exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful protest,” said Deepa Padmanabha, a senior legal adviser for Greenpeace USA. “They’re trying to buy silence; that silence is not for sale.”
Legal and Indigenous experts said the lawsuit was a“textbook” example of a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” known colloquially as a SLAPP suit, a tactic used by corporations and wealthy individuals to drown their critics in legal fees. They also criticized Energy Transfer for using the lawsuit to undermine tribes’ treaty rights by exaggerating the role of out-of-state agitators.
The three Greenpeace entities named in the lawsuit — Greenpeace Inc., a U.S.-based advocacy arm; Greenpeace Funds, which raises money and is also based in the U.S.; and Greenpeace International, based in the Netherlands — are now planning their next moves, including an appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court and a separate countersuit in the European Union.
As part of a previous appeal to move the trial more impartial court, Greenpeace submitted a 33-page document to the state Supreme Court explaining that the jurors in Morton County, North Dakota — where the trial occurred — would likely be biased against the defendants, since they were drawn from the same area where the anti-pipeline protests had taken place and disrupted daily life.
The request included results from a 2022 survey of 150 potential jurors in Morton County conducted by the National Jury Project, a litigation consulting company, which found 97 percent of residents said they could not be a fair or impartial juror in the lawsuit. Greenpeace also pointed out that nine of the 20 final jurors had either “direct personal experience” with the protests, or a friend or family member with direct personal experience.
Deepa Padmanabha, a Greenpeace staff attorney, outside the Morton County Memorial Courthouse in North Dakota.
Stephanie Keith / Greenpeace
Pat Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, said the chances that the North Dakota Supreme Court will overturn the lower court’s verdict are “probably less than 50 percent.” What may be more likely, he said, is that the Supreme Court will reduce the “outrageous” amount of money charged by the Morton County jury, which includes various penalties that doubled the $300 million in damages that Energy Transfer had originally claimed.
“The court does have a lot of discretion in reducing the amount of damages,” he said. He called the Morton County verdict “beyond punitive. This is scorched Earth, what we’re seeing here.”
Depending on what happens at the North Dakota Supreme Court, Parenteau also said there’s a basis for appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, based on the First Amendment free speech issues involved. But, he added, the move could be “a really dangerous proposition,” with the court’s conservative supermajority and the precedent such a case could set. A federal decision in favor of Energy Transfer could limit any organizations’ ability to protest nationwide — and not just against pipelines.
Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International, which coordinates 24 independent Greenpeace chapters around the world but is legally separate from them, is also fighting back. It countersued Energy Partners in the Netherlands in February, making use of a new anti-SLAPP directive in the EU that went into effect in May 2024.
Greenpeace International is only on the hook for a tiny fraction of the more than $600 million charged against the three Greenpeace bodies by the Morton County jury. Its countersuit in the EU wouldn’t change what has happened in U.S. courts. Instead, it seeks to recover costs incurred by the Amsterdam-based branch during its years-long fights against the Morton County lawsuit and an earlier, federal case in 2017 that was eventually dismissed.
Greenpeace International’s trial will begin in Dutch courts in July and is the first test of the EU’s anti-SLAPP directive. According to Kristen Casper, general counsel for Greenpeace International, the branch in the EU has a strong case because the only action it took in support of the anti-pipeline protests was to sign an open letter — what she described as a clear case of protected public participation. Eric Heinze, a free speech expert and professor of law and humanities at Queen Mary University of London, said the case appeared “black and white.”
“Normally I don’t like to predict,” he said, “but if I had to put money on this I would bet for Greenpeace to win.”
While Greenpeace’s various entities may have to pay damages as ordered by U.S. courts, the result of the case in the EU, Casper said a victory would send an international message against “corporate bullying and weaponization of the law.” Padmanabha said that regardless of the damages that the Greenpeace USA incurs, the organization isn’t going away any time soon. “You can’t bankrupt the movement,” she said. “What we work on, our campaigns and our commitments — that is not going to change.”
In response to request for comment, Energy Transfer said the Morton County jury’s decision was a victory for the people of Mandan and “for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law. That Greenpeace has been held responsible is a win for all of us.”
Nick Estes, a professor of American Indian studies at the University of Minnesota and member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe who wrote a book about the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, said the case was about more than just punishing Greenpeace — it was a proxy attack on the water protectors at Standing Rock and the broader environmental justice movement. He said it showed what could happen “if you step outside the path of what they consider as an acceptable form of protest.”“They had to sidestep the actual context of the entire movement, around treaty rights, land rights, water rights, and tribal sovereignty because they couldn’t win that fight,” he said. “They had to go a circuitous route, and find a sympathetic court to attack the environmental movement.”
Janet Alkire, the chair of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said in a March 3 statement that the Morton County case was “frivolously alleging defamation and seeking money damages, designed to shut down all voices supporting Standing Rock.” She said the company also used propaganda to discredit the tribe during and after the protests.“Part of the attack on our tribe is to attack our allies,” Alkire wrote. “The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not be silenced.”
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A court ordered Greenpeace to pay a pipeline company $660M. What happens next? on Mar 21, 2025.
