Julia Kelley

A North Dakota jury has ordered environmental group Greenpeace to pay Dakota Access Pipeline’s operating oil company in a case sparking controversy around Americans’ right to freedom of speech and protest.

Dakota Pipeline Protest — Protest Against Dakota Access Pipeline. John Duffy. CC BY 2.0

On March 19, 2024, a North Dakota jury found Greenpeace, a global environmental nonprofit network, guilty of defamation and destructive protest action against the Dakota Access Pipeline, ordering the nonprofit to pay its operating oil company $667 million. This decision comes after years of national pushback against the Dakota Access Pipeline due to the project’s potential environmental hazards; the 1,172-mile-long underground pipeline transfers crude oil from North Dakota to an oil terminal in Patoka, Illinois. Moreover, the pipeline stretches within a half-mile of the current Standing Rock Sioux Reservation boundaries, posing potential risks to significant cultural and burial sites. As such, since its approval in 2016, protests led by Native tribes and environmental groups such as Greenpeace began sprouting up around the pipeline’s construction sites and sacred Native American areas. In many instances, demonstrations resulted in violence between protesters and law enforcement. It is because of these protests that the builders of the pipeline, oil company Energy Transfer, praised the jury’s March 19 decision, echoed in its counsel’s statement: “Peaceful protest is an inherent American right; however, violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable.”

In response to this decision, however, environmental activists and Tribal nations have taken a much different position. Contrary to Energy Transfer’s sentiment, many have determined this verdict to be an attack on First Amendment rights rather than a protection against unnecessary violence and destruction. Those associated with Greenpeace have even named the case a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or a suit that intentionally targets those speaking out against public interest issues in an attempt to intimidate critics and force them to spend money. To those opposing the pipeline, not only has this lawsuit silenced years-long appeals for environmental safety and Native land protection, but has also cost Greenpeace an immense amount of money to defend its position, thus delaying progress in such areas. Despite being a major nonprofit, Greenpeace has previously warned that losing this case could potentially lead to bankruptcy. Those involved now fear that this could be a reality, as financial reports demonstrate that its total assets from 2023 may not be enough to ensure a supersedeas bond, in which a surety insurer would put up the bond necessary to pay the court-ordered amount. If not, then Energy Transfer would be able to begin seizing Greenpeace’s assets, including all cash needed to keep it operating.

Moreover, Greenpeace has come to represent freedom of speech and protest in general. In an interview with Democracy Now, Steven Donziger described the trial as a way to “silence people’s legitimate constitutionally protected right to speak out,” founded on a false narrative that protesters were violent while it was actually “law enforcement agencies […] hired by Energy Transfer that were really committing violence.” Critics warn that this will have effects that go beyond support for environmental and Native protections, potentially posing detrimental risks to nonprofit work as a whole. With a rise in anti-protest bills since 2017 mirroring a rise in major protest movements, much of this newly proposed legislation calls for increased liability against organizations not directly involved with protests but who offer support, including nonprofits or religious groups. In addition, the potential bankruptcy of Greenpeace, a substantial and largely influential organization, signals even fewer protections for smaller nonprofits, who may not have the same amount of financial support or as wide of a network. This could significantly decrease charities’ ability to speak out on various issues, for fear that they could easily be sued by larger corporations. Such concern would halt imperative support for causes across the country, a major blow to many movements. .

In the wake of the lawsuit, supporters of Greenpeace, environmental protection and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have critiqued and denounced the jury’s final decision. Despite the shock that the trial has caused, such advocates find hope in Greenpeace’s intention to appeal the case, as the organization declared in a statement released a day after the verdict. In addition to this, Greenpeace also highlighted the increased support it has gained over the past year, as opposed to a dissolution of its movement risked by the court case. The statement’s overall message affirms Greenpeace’s continued efforts as well, signaling that their work is still not over: “we will not be silenced, and our movement will endure.”

GET INVOLVED:

For those looking to get involved with environmental protection in the United States, researching local or state legislation is a great place to start. Looking into advocacy on a federal scale can be powerful as well, especially through staying updated on EPA regulations and making comments. In addition, check out organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, We Act For Environmental Justice or the National Environmental Education Foundation, all of which are focused on making environmental change and expanding awareness through public policy support and education. Those interested in supporting Native American rights can look into the Native American Rights Fund, the Association on American Indian Affairs, the American Indian Policy Institute or Cultural Survival.

Also check out...

Featured trips