Jury Finds Greenpeace Must Pay Hundreds of Millions Over Dakota Access Protest

A North Dakota jury on Wednesday found Greenpeace liable for defamation and other claims brought by a pipeline company in connection with protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline.

The nine-person jury awarded Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The lawsuit had accused Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. of defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts.

When asked if Greenpeace plans to appeal, Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha said, “We know that this fight is not over.”

Padmanabha added that the organization's work “is never going stop,” responding to questions about whether the damages amount would end Greenpeace in the United States.

“That’s the really important message today, and we’re just walking out and we’re going to get together and figure out what our next steps are,” Padmanabha said.

An email sent to spokespeople for Energy Transfer was not immediately returned.

“The work of Greenpeace is never going to stop. That’s the really important message today, and we’re just walking out and we’re going to get together and figure out what our next steps are,” Padmanabha added.

The case reaches back to protests in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access oil pipeline and its Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. For years the tribe has opposed the line as a risk to its water supply. The multistate pipeline has been transporting oil since mid-2017.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Trey Cox has said Greenpeace carried out a scheme to stop the pipeline’s construction. During opening statements, he alleged Greenpeace paid outsiders to come into the area and protest, sent blockade supplies, organized or led protester trainings, and made untrue statements about the project to stop it.

Attorneys for the Greenpeace entities said there is no evidence to the claims, that Greenpeace employees had little or no involvement in the protests and the organizations had nothing to do with Energy Transfer’s delays in construction or refinancing.

Greenpeace representatives have said the lawsuit is a critical test of First Amendment free speech and protest rights and could threaten the organization’s future. A spokesperson for Energy Transfer previously said the lawsuit is about Greenpeace not following the law, not free speech.