North Dakota Supreme Court denies petition to move Greenpeace trial to different court
The North Dakota Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a petition by Greenpeace to move its legal battle with Energy Transfer out of Morton County.
Attorneys for Greenpeace argued that the jury in the lawsuit, which concerns the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, will not be able to deliver a fair verdict since many Morton County residents were directly impacted by the demonstrations. It cited survey data as well as statements made by prospective jurors during the jury selection process.
The environmental group also raised concerns that jurors may have been targeted with pro-fossil fuel content, including political mailers and advertisements, leading up to the trial.
More Dakota Access Pipeline coverage
Greenpeace suggested moving the case to Cass County.
Energy Transfer has said that its own survey data indicates that Morton County residents would not be biased jurors in the case, and that moving the lawsuit to a different court would be cumbersome.
The Supreme Court did not explain its reasoning in denying Greenpeace's petition.
On Wednesday, the North Dakota Supreme Court also denied a request by a group of news outlets, which included the North Dakota Monitor, for expanded access to the trial.
The high court did not provide a reason for that denial, either.
The group had asked the Supreme Court to review Southwest Judicial District Judge James Gion's decision not to allow any photography, video or livestreaming of the trial. While media and other members of the public may attend the trial, they aren't allowed to use phones or other electronic devices in the courtroom.
In an order denying requests for expanded access, Gion said he was worried about keeping witnesses sequestered as well as the possibility for the harassment of witnesses, jurors, attorneys and court staff.
Media attorney Jack McDonald in the petition asked the court to order Gion to reverse his decision given the significant public interest in the trial.
In the petition, McDonald cited the North Dakota Constitution, which holds that all courts shall be open, as well as the First and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
McDonald also argued that Gion didn't sufficiently explain the reasons behind his decision.
North Dakota district judges commonly allow up to two photographers and up to two video cameras in the courtroom during proceedings. Some expanded media orders also allow journalists to bring audio recorders and cellphones. Some North Dakota judges have allowed media to view hearings remotely through Zoom, though not consistently.
A private livestream is being provided to some attorneys for Greenpeace and Energy Transfer.
Other media organizations that joined the petition were Forum Communications, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, KFYR-TV, KXMB-TV, The Bismarck Tribune, DRILLED, The Intercept, the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, News/Media Alliance, Society of Environmental Journalists and the Minnesota Newspaper Association.
Media petition North Dakota Supreme Court for expanded access to Greenpeace trial
In the lawsuit, Energy Transfer seeks roughly $300 million from Greenpeace for damages it claims the environmental organization caused in relation to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Energy Transfer alleges Greenpeace aided and abetted criminal behavior by protesters, and spread a misinformation campaign about the pipeline project in order to delay its construction and tarnish the company's relationships with banks. Greenpeace denies all the claims, and says Energy Transfer is unfairly targeting it in an attempt to harm the environmental group and intimidate other activist organizations.
The high court last week also denied a petition for expanded livestream access submitted by a group of attorneys monitoring the case. The Supreme Court did not explain its reasoning behind that decision.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Trump's pick for New Jersey prosecutor, Alina Habba, is serving unlawfully, judge rules
The Aug. 21 ruling escalates the Trump administration's battle with the judiciary over Habba's appointment. President Donald Trump's pick to lead the federal prosecutor's office in New Jersey, Alina Habba, has been serving unlawfully for nearly two months, a judge ruled on Aug. 21. Trump selected Habba, his former personal lawyer, as the interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey in March. But keeping Habba in that role has proven a challenging task. On July 22, a panel of judges declined to appoint Habba to the role. Attorney General Pam Bondi responded by removing the official who was set to replace Habba. "This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges – especially when they threaten the President's core Article II powers," Bondi wrote in a July 22 post on X. Article II of the Constitution spells out the powers of the presidency. Federal Judge Matthew W. Brann's Aug. 21 ruling that Habba's interim appointment ended on July 1 escalates the administration's battle with the judiciary. Brann wrote that courts can declare Habba's actions since July 1 void. "And because she is not currently qualified to exercise the functions and duties of the office in an acting capacity, she must be disqualified from participating in any ongoing cases," Brann added. Brann is the chief federal judge for a trial court in Pennsylvania. However, he was assigned to handle cases challenging Habba's ongoing role in New Jersey federal prosecutions by the court that deals with federal appeals for both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The Justice Department, which includes the New Jersey U.S. attorney's office, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Brann halted his own ruling from going into effect until after the Trump administration had a chance to appeal and see what the higher courts say. Before March, Habba had never worked as a prosecutor. She represented Trump in multiple civil cases in recent years when he was out of office.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Jasmine Crockett calls Trump and MAGA voters the ‘most unpatriotic people'
Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, sharply criticized President Donald Trump and his supporters on Wednesday, calling them unpatriotic during an interview on California Gov. Gavin Newsom's podcast. Crockett said during the interview that Trump tried to use Congress, his administration and the courts to his advantage any time he disagreed with something. 'Whether we're talking about those in his administration or whether we're talking about the courts or whether we're talking about the Congress, that is one of the reasons he is so desperate to make sure that he can win in the midterms, because he knows that Democrats, it's not even about partisanship. It's about doing what's right. It's about doing the American thing,' Crockett said. 'And to be clear, you can wave all the flags you want to, but I am telling you right now that the most unpatriotic people that we have in this country are MAGA and this president. We are the real patriots. And it is time for us to take our flag back and show people what America is about,' the Texas lawmaker added. 3 Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, sharply criticized President Donald Trump and his supporters on Wednesday, calling them unpatriotic during an interview on California Gov. Gavin Newsom's podcast. AP She accused the president of 'decimating' the Constitution and taking freedoms away. 'You can't say that you love the Constitution while decimating it with every single stroke of a pen for an executive order while you are disrespecting our troops who have signed up to protect our freedoms, not just here but abroad, and then taking people's freedoms away using those exact same troops. I just don't understand,' she told Newsom. 'President Trump is the leader of the greatest and most patriotic political movement in history,' White House assistant press secretary Liz Huston told Fox News Digital in a statement. 3 Rep. Jasmine Crockett accused President Trump of 'decimating' the Constitution and taking freedoms away. REUTERS Crockett and Trump have traded barbs in recent months, with the Democratic lawmaker even calling the president a 'piece of s—.' Trump in turn has said Crockett is a 'low-IQ person.' Crockett said anyone who supported Trump is 'sick' during a podcast interview with Katie Couric in June. 3 Crockett and Trump have traded barbs in recent months, with the Democratic lawmaker even calling the president 'a piece of s—.' Trump in turn referred to Crockett as a 'low-IQ person.' Getty Images The Texas congresswoman claimed that no matter what political affiliations Americans identify with, they 'should be against Trump.' When asked by Couric what she thinks of Trump deploying National Guardsmen and Marines to Los Angeles to quell the anti-ICE protests, Crockett slammed Trump for seeking 'retribution' and having his own 'special little army' to carry it out. 'It is sick. It is really sick, and anybody that supports it is also sick,' she told Couric. 'We've got a mental health crisis in this country because everyone, no matter how you affiliate yourself, should be against Trump. Period.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to these remarks during a press conference in June. 'The last time I checked, Jasmine Crockett couldn't dream of winning such a majority of the public as President Trump did,' she said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
ACLU files lawsuit over WV National Guard deployment to DC
U.S. Soldiers from the South Carolina National Guard and U.S. Army and Air Force service members from the West Virginia National Guard receive a briefing prior to being deputized as part of D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force, Washington, D.C., Aug. 19, 2025. Approximately 800 National Guard service members comprise JTF-DC, supporting the D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force. (Photos courtesy Washington D.C. National Guard/Facebook) Community advocates who oppose Gov. Patrick Morrisey's deployment of the West Virginia National Guard to support President Donald Trump's crackdown in the nation's capital have filed a lawsuit challenging the move. The ACLU of West Virginia filed the complaint Thursday in Kanawha County Circuit Court on behalf of West Virginia Citizen Action Group. It lists Morrisey and Maj. General James Seward as defendants. 'This action challenges an unprecedented and unlawful deployment of West Virginia National Guard forces beyond our state's borders — not to defend against invasion, not to respond to natural disaster, not to assist a sister state's emergency request — but to serve as political props in a manufactured crisis,' the group says in the complaint. 'West Virginia law is clear: The governor may deploy the National Guard outside our borders only for specific, enumerated purposes — none of which exist here,' they write. The complaint argues that Morrisey exceeded his constitutional and statutory authority with the deployment. The state code that governs National Guard deployments was shaped by legal battles after the 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain, where National Guard troops were deployed against U.S. citizens, ACLU-WV Legal Director Aubrey Sparks said in a news release. 'The Guard's services are indispensable to West Virginia, and sending these vital resources out of state to participate in a political stunt by the president is unprecedented, unconscionable, and unlawful,' Sparks said. 'Neither state law nor our Constitution permits this deployment.' The lawsuit seeks to 'restore the rule of law' and return Guard members to their 'proper role' of serving West Virginia families and communities, a news release says. In a statement, Dani Parent, Executive Director of WV CAG, said the organization has deep concerns about the deployment to DC. 'As an organization with over 50 years of advocating and organizing West Virginians for accountability, justice, and good governance, we believe that the use of West Virginia's National Guard troops in this context is a clear misuse of power,' Parent said. 'The Guard exists to serve West Virginians in times of crisis, and this action appears to be motivated by partisanship and to appease the current federal administration. 'Sending our Guard out of state for political posturing serves only to divert critical resources needed here at home,' Parent said. 'The Governor's priority should be in serving West Virginians, not political grandstanding.' Morrisey announced Saturday his plans to send between 300 and 400 skilled personnel from the West Virginia National Guard to Washington, D.C. along with 'mission-essential equipment' to assist in Trump's federal takeover of policing there. Trump has declared a 'public safety emergency' in Washington, D.C., mobilizing the local National Guard to 'take back' the capital from what he described as violent criminals. Washington's elected officials have objected to the president's claims about the city's crime. Last year the Department of Justice, under then-President Joe Biden, said D.C. crime had hit a 30-year low. Trump's Department of Justice has reportedly launched an investigation into whether the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department manipulated crime data. 'West Virginia is proud to stand with President Trump in his effort to restore pride and beauty to our nation's capital,' Morrisey said in a news release Saturday. 'The men and women of our National Guard represent the best of our state, and this mission reflects our shared commitment to a strong and secure America.' West Virginia Democrats called the deployment 'political theatre.' West Virginia is one of six Republican-led states that are sending a total of more than 1,000 National Guard members to D.C. Trump has also activated 800 members from D.C.'s National Guard. The legal action was assigned to Kanawha Circuit Judge Richard Lindsay. Morrisey's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the lawsuit Thursday afternoon. Solve the daily Crossword
