A landmark First Amendment trial begins Monday in Mandan, North Dakota, as Energy Transfer seeks millions in damages from Greenpeace over 2016-2017 Dakota Access Pipeline protests. The environmental group claims this corporate lawsuit could cripple protest rights nationwide.
Energy Transfer alleges Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA coordinated trespassing, vandalism, and defamation during demonstrations against the pipeline's Missouri River crossing. The 1,172-mile oil pipeline became operational in 2017 despite fierce opposition from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and climate activists.
This case isn't about damages - it's about silencing dissent,said Greenpeace USA's Sushma Raman. A ruling against us jeopardizes every American's right to protest fossil fuel projects.
Key legal arguments include:
- Whether training protesters in nonviolent tactics creates liability for unrelated actions
- If foreign-based Greenpeace International falls under U.S. jurisdiction
- How courts define defamationin climate policy debates
Energy Transfer maintains this is a straightforward property rights case. We support lawful protest,said spokeswoman Vicki Granado. But no organization should weaponize misinformation to incite illegal activity.
The trial follows a contentious legal history:
- 2017: Federal lawsuit dismissed on jurisdictional grounds
- 2019: State court revives modified claims
- 2024: Judge allows most allegations to proceed
Legal experts warn a Greenpeace loss could empower SLAPP lawsuits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) against environmental groups. Recent analysis shows oil/gas companies filed 63% more litigation against activists since 2015.
As the five-week trial unfolds, observers note its timing during an election year amplifies implications for protest rights under future administrations. With Energy Transfer now operating 125,000 miles of pipelines globally, the outcome could reshape corporate-clash activism dynamics worldwide.