A Texas pipeline company’s lawsuit accusing Greenpeace of defamation, disruptions and attacks during protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline goes to trial in North Dakota on Monday, in a case the environmental advocacy organization says threatens free speech rights and its very future.
The lawsuit stems from the protests in 2016 and 2017 over the oil pipeline’s planned Missouri River crossing, upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has long argued that the pipeline threatens its water supply. Of the thousands of people who protested the project, hundreds were arrested.
Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access allege trespass, nuisance, defamation and other offenses by Netherlands-based Greenpeace International and its American branch, Greenpeace USA. The lawsuit also names the group’s funding arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc.
The jury trial in state court in Mandan, North Dakota, is scheduled to last five weeks.
What are details of the case?
Dallas-based Energy Transfer alleges Greenpeace tried to delay construction of the pipeline, defamed the companies behind it, and coordinated trespassing, vandalism and violence by pipeline protesters. The lawsuit seeks millions of dollars in damages.
The Dakota Access Pipeline was completed and has been transporting oil since June 2017.
Greenpeace International said it shouldn’t be named in the lawsuit because it is distinct from the two U.S.-based Greenpeace entities, operates outside the U.S., and its employees were never in North Dakota or involved with the protests.
Greenpeace USA said the plaintiffs have failed to back up their claims in the years since the protests.
Earlier in February, a judge denied motions by Greenpeace to throw out or limit parts of the case.
What is Greenpeace’s position?
Representatives of the environmental organization founded over 50 years ago said the company just wants to silence oil industry critics.
“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,” Greenpeace USA Interim Executive Director Sushma Raman told reporters. “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 USA helped support “nonviolent, direct-action training” on safety and de-escalation at the protests, Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha said.
Energy Transfer is arguing that “anyone engaged in a training at a protest should be held responsible for the actions of every person at that protest,” Padmanabha said. “So it’s pretty easy to see how, if successful, this kind of tactic could have a serious chilling effect on anyone who might consider participating in a protest.”
Earlier in February, Greenpeace International filed an anti-intimidation suit in the District Court of Amsterdam against Energy Transfer, saying the company acted wrongfully and should pay costs and damages resulting from its “meritless” litigation.
What does Energy Transfer say?
An Energy Transfer spokesperson said the lawsuit is about Greenpeace not following the law.
“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,” Energy Transfer spokeswoman Vicki Granado said in a statement.
The company filed a similar case in federal court in 2017, which a judge dismissed in 2019. Soon after, Energy Transfer filed the state court lawsuit now headed to trial.
Energy Transfer launched in 1996 with 20 employees and 200 miles (320 kilometers) of natural gas pipelines. Today the 11,000-employee company owns and operates over 125,000 miles (200,000 kilometers) of pipelines and related facilities.
