A jury in North Dakota (USA) ordered Greenpeace to pay more than 660 million dollars in damages to Energy Transfer (ET), an energy company that accused the NGO of organizing a campaign of violence and defamation against its Dakota Access pipeline.
This ruling represents a harsh blow for Greenpeace and has sparked a debate about freedom of speech and the right to protest in the United States.
The legal conflict
Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace on charges such as trespass, nuisance, conspiracy, and deprivation of access to property during the protests between 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access pipeline.
According to the Sioux indigenous tribe of Standing Rock, this project traverses sacred sites and endangers sources of drinking water. Despite massive mobilizations, the pipeline began operating in 2017.
The case was initially dismissed in federal court, but Energy Transfer filed a new lawsuit in North Dakota. After more than two days of deliberation, the jury issued its verdict, imposing the multi-million dollar fine.
Reactions and controversies over the condemnation of Greenpeace
Greenpeace has stated that it will appeal the ruling and has accused Energy Transfer of using legal proceedings to suppress dissent. Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace in the United States, pointed out that “you can’t bankrupt a movement.”
Meanwhile, the International NGO has filed a counterclaim against ET in the Netherlands, arguing that these actions seek to intimidate and silence.
The trial has been seen by critics as an example of “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPP), which aim to deter legitimate protest. Michael Burger, a scholar at Columbia University, warned that these lawsuits should be scrutinized under strict anti-SLAPP laws.
Implications for protests and the environment
While the ruling could dampen protests involving physical obstruction, it should not affect peaceful demonstrations, assured Michael Gerrard, an environmental law expert.
However, this case highlights the growing tensions between fossil fuel companies, activists, and affected communities, raising questions about the balance between energy development and civil rights.
Cover photo: AFP
Have you checked out our YouTube channel yet? Subscribe now!
