A jury in North Dakota has ruled that Greenpeace is liable for defamation and conspiracy related to its protests against the Dakota Access pipeline. The jury awarded Energy Transfer LP, the company behind the pipeline, a staggering $660 million in damages. This verdict, reached earlier this week, has raised concerns among legal experts about its potential impact on environmental activism across the United States.
Jennifer Safstrom, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, emphasized that the ruling could discourage other groups from protesting against oil and gas companies. She noted that the fear of legal repercussions could create a chilling effect on activism.
Josh Galperin, a law professor at Pace University, described the verdict as unprecedented and criticized the amount awarded as excessive. The outcome signals that companies can successfully challenge protest groups in court, which may encourage more corporations to pursue similar legal actions.
Michael Gerrard, who leads Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, warned that this verdict could serve as an invitation for other companies to take legal action against activists. Greenpeace has announced plans to appeal the decision and has filed a countersuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands.
Energy Transfer celebrated the verdict, claiming it was a victory for the company and asserting that Greenpeace’s actions had caused significant financial harm. The company argued that the protests damaged its reputation and affected its ability to raise capital.
Greenpeace and some legal scholars have characterized the lawsuit as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP, which aims to silence activists through legal intimidation. North Dakota lacks laws that protect activists from such lawsuits, making it easier for Energy Transfer to pursue its case.
Experts stress the importance of advocacy groups understanding the legal landscape in their states. Caroline Chen, director of environmental justice at New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, highlighted the need for organizations to be aware of their rights and the laws that could affect their actions.
The Dakota Access pipeline protests began in April 2016, led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who raised concerns about environmental risks. Although the Obama administration initially halted the project, President Trump reversed that decision in 2017, allowing the pipeline to be completed.
In response to the protests, North Dakota passed laws increasing penalties for civil disobedience targeting oil and gas infrastructure. Since then, 18 other states have enacted similar laws, reflecting a growing trend to impose harsher penalties on energy protestors.