A high-stakes trial opening Monday in Mandan, North Dakota, could redefine free speech rights for environmental groups nationwide. Energy Transfer, the Texas-based operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline, accuses Greenpeace of defamation, trespassing, and inciting protests during the 2016–2017 Standing Rock demonstrations. Greenpeace warns the lawsuit—seeking millions in damages—aims to silence critics and set a dangerous precedent for peaceful dissent.
The case centers on protests against the pipeline’s Missouri River crossing near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Tribal leaders and over 10,000 activists argued the project risked contaminating water supplies and sacred lands. Energy Transfer claims Greenpeace orchestrated illegal activities, including vandalism and delays, costing the company significant losses.
This trial isn’t just about Greenpeace—it’s a direct assault on the First Amendment,
said Greenpeace USA Interim Director Sushma Raman. If corporations can bankrupt organizations for supporting protests, no journalist or activist is safe.
Energy Transfer’s 2017 federal lawsuit was dismissed, but its state-level refiling leverages broader trespassing and nuisance claims. Greenpeace International argues it’s being wrongly targeted, as its staff never participated in U.S. protests. The organization filed a countersuit in Amsterdam, calling Energy Transfer’s actions strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP).
Key issues jurors will weigh:
- Whether training protesters in de-escalation constitutes liability for later actions
- If Greenpeace’s advocacy crossed into defamation
- The financial toll of delayed pipeline construction
With 125,000 miles of pipelines under management, Energy Transfer asserts its right to combat unlawful activism. A spokesperson stated, Peaceful protest is protected, but coordination of property damage is not.
Legal experts warn a ruling against Greenpeace could empower corporations to weaponize courts against critics. Since 2020, 34 U.S. states have enacted anti-protest laws targeting pipeline opponents—a trend amplified by this case’s outcome. The five-week trial may shape environmental advocacy for decades.
