A high-stakes courtroom battle is about to kick off in North Dakota, and it could spell the end for one of the world’s most well-known environmental groups: Greenpeace USA. The case revolves around the fierce fight over the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline — and the fallout has been years in the making.
The company behind the pipeline, Energy Transfer, is accusing Greenpeace of helping to organize protests that delayed construction and cost the company at least $300 million. The protests, which took place in 2016 and 2017, drew global attention as thousands of people camped out near the pipeline’s route, standing in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The tribe argued that the project threatened their water supply and desecrated sacred lands.
Although Energy Transfer’s initial lawsuit was dismissed in federal court, they’ve brought a similar case in North Dakota state court — and this time, it’s going to trial. The company claims Greenpeace and others engaged in a coordinated effort to disrupt construction through misinformation and illegal activity. They even accuse the group of inciting violence against Energy Transfer’s employees and property. Greenpeace, however, says the lawsuit is nothing more than an attack on free speech and an attempt to intimidate critics.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. If Energy Transfer wins, Greenpeace USA could be forced to shut down after more than 50 years of environmental activism. The group insists they played only a limited role in the protests and that the demonstrations were largely led by Native American groups. Despite the pressure, Greenpeace remains defiant, vowing to keep fighting against the fossil fuel industry and its impact on climate change.
Energy Transfer’s co-founder, Kelcy Warren, has been vocal about his frustration. In interviews, he’s accused Greenpeace of spreading false information and damaging his company’s reputation and bottom line. He’s made it clear he wants the group held accountable — and he’s not backing down.
Legal experts say this case has all the hallmarks of a SLAPP suit — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. These kinds of cases are often filed by powerful companies to silence criticism by dragging opponents into costly legal battles. North Dakota doesn’t have laws in place to prevent these kinds of suits, which makes Greenpeace’s fight even tougher.
As the trial begins, the jury will hear both sides lay out their arguments over the next five weeks. With no sign of a settlement on the horizon, the final verdict could have far-reaching implications for environmental activism in the US and beyond. Even if Greenpeace wins, the cost of defending itself has already run into the millions — a price the group says it’s willing to pay to stand up for what it believes in.
In the words of Greenpeace USA’s interim executive director, Sushma Raman: “You can’t sue a movement.” And no matter what happens in the courtroom, the fight for a greener, more just future isn’t going away anytime soon.
