A Texas Pipeline Company lawsuit accused Greenpeace of defamation, disruption and attacks during protests against Dakota’s access to the pipeline will be held in North Dakota on Monday, in which case environmental advocacy groups say threats the right to freedom of speech and Its future.
The lawsuit stems from protests against the Missouri River intersection in 2016 and 2017, standing upstream of the reservation of the Rock Sioux tribe. The tribe has long believed that the pipeline threatened its water supply. Hundreds of people were arrested in protest of the project.
Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access alleges trespassing, nuisance, defamation and other crimes in the Netherlands International Greenpeace and its U.S. branch GreenPeace USA. The $300 million U.S. lawsuit also named GreenPeace Fund Inc., the group’s funding arm.
A jury trial program in a state court in Mandan, New York lasts for five weeks.
What are the details of the case?
Dallas-based energy transfer alleges Greenpeace attempted to delay the construction of the pipeline, slander the company behind it, and coordinated trespassing, vandalism and violence through the pipeline protesters. The lawsuit seeks millions of dollars in losses.
The Dakota access pipeline has been completed since June 2017 and has been transporting oil.
U.S. tariff threats are pushing for revisiting pipeline projects to boost Canadian economic self-reliance. CBC’s Sam Samson looks at changing conversations and his position on the road.
Greenpeace International said it should not be named in the lawsuit because it is unlike two U.S. Greenpeace organizations outside the U.S., whose employees have never been in North Dakota or participated in protests.
Greenpeace in the United States said the plaintiffs failed to support their claims in the years since the protests.
In early February, a judge denied Greenpeace’s motion to abandon or restrict part of the case.
What is Greenpeace’s position?
“If we lose, Greenpeace will face financial destruction, ending more than 50 years of environmental activism,” the group said in a statement.
Representatives of the Environmental Organization argued that the energy transfer was just trying to silence critics of the oil industry.
“This trial is a critical test of the future of the First Amendment, whether it is freedom of speech or peaceful protest, [Donald] Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace, told reporters, the Trump administration and beyond. “In this case, a bad ruling could put all of us at risk of our rights and freedoms, whether we are journalists, protesters or anyone who wants to participate in the public debate.”
Senior legal counsel Deepa Padmanabha said the U.S. Greenpeace helped support “nonviolent, direct action training” during the protests.
Energy Transfer believes that “anyone trained in the protests should be held accountable for the actions of everyone in the protests”. “So it’s easy to see how this strategy can have a serious indifference effect on anyone who might consider participating in the protest.”
In early February, Greenpeace International filed a lawsuit against poisoning in the Amsterdam District Court against energy transfer, saying the company had taken wrong actions and should pay the fees and damages caused by its “useful” lawsuit. In 2024, the EU passed provisions aimed at helping journalists, rights activists and public regulators for litigation aimed at harassment or silence, including by kidnapping them into expensive litigation.
The brewing trade war between Canada and the U.S. on tariffs has sparked new interest in abandoned pipeline projects such as Energy East, which will deliver oil to Ontario and Quebec, as well as the northern cover that will run to the northern coast of British Columbia Twi. Public support for the idea is growing, with politicians on the rise of recovery projects, but one expert says pipeline companies may not be too Passionate about this idea.
What do you say about energy transfer?
An energy transfer spokesman said the lawsuit was about Greenpeace’s non-compliance with the law.
“It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. That’s what energy transfer spokesman Vicki Granado said in a statement.
The company filed a similar case in federal court in 2017, and the judge dismissed it in 2019.
Energy Transfer was launched in 1996 and has 20 employees and 320 kilometers of natural gas pipelines. Today, the 11,000-employment company owns and operates more than 200,000 kilometers of pipelines and related facilities.
