logo
A court ordered Greenpeace to pay a pipeline company $660M. What happens next?

A court ordered Greenpeace to pay a pipeline company $660M. What happens next?

Yahoo21-03-2025

A jury in North Dakota ordered Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace in 2019, alleging that it had orchestrated a vast conspiracy against the company by organizing historic protests on the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in 2016 and 2017.
In its lawsuit, Energy Transfer Partners accused three Greenpeace entities — two in the U.S. and one based in Amsterdam — of violating North Dakota trespassing and defamation laws, and of coordinating protests aimed to stop the 1,172-mile pipeline from transporting oil from North Dakota's Bakken oil fields to a terminal in Illinois. Greenpeace maintained it played only a minor supporting role in the Indigenous-led movement.
'This was obviously a test case meant to scare others from exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful protest,' said Deepa Padmanabha, a senior legal adviser for Greenpeace USA. 'They're trying to buy silence; that silence is not for sale.'
Legal and Indigenous experts said the lawsuit was a'textbook' example of a 'strategic lawsuit against public participation,' known colloquially as a SLAPP suit, a tactic used by corporations and wealthy individuals to drown their critics in legal fees. They also criticized Energy Transfer for using the lawsuit to undermine tribes' treaty rights by exaggerating the role of out-of-state agitators.
The three Greenpeace entities named in the lawsuit — Greenpeace Inc., a U.S.-based advocacy arm; Greenpeace Funds, which raises money and is also based in the U.S.; and Greenpeace International, based in the Netherlands — are now planning their next moves, including an appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court and a separate countersuit in the European Union.
As part of a previous appeal to move the trial more impartial court, Greenpeace submitted a 33-page document to the state Supreme Court explaining that the jurors in Morton County, North Dakota — where the trial occurred — would likely be biased against the defendants, since they were drawn from the same area where the anti-pipeline protests had taken place and disrupted daily life.
The request included results from a 2022 survey of 150 potential jurors in Morton County conducted by the National Jury Project, a litigation consulting company, which found 97 percent of residents said they could not be a fair or impartial juror in the lawsuit. Greenpeace also pointed out that nine of the 20 final jurors had either 'direct personal experience' with the protests, or a friend or family member with direct personal experience.
Pat Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, said the chances that the North Dakota Supreme Court will overturn the lower court's verdict are 'probably less than 50 percent.' What may be more likely, he said, is that the Supreme Court will reduce the 'outrageous' amount of money charged by the Morton County jury, which includes various penalties that doubled the $300 million in damages that Energy Transfer had originally claimed.
'The court does have a lot of discretion in reducing the amount of damages,' he said. He called the Morton County verdict 'beyond punitive. This is scorched Earth, what we're seeing here.'
Depending on what happens at the North Dakota Supreme Court, Parenteau also said there's a basis for appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, based on the First Amendment free speech issues involved. But, he added, the move could be 'a really dangerous proposition,' with the court's conservative supermajority and the precedent such a case could set. A federal decision in favor of Energy Transfer could limit any organizations' ability to protest nationwide — and not just against pipelines.
Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International, which coordinates 24 independent Greenpeace chapters around the world but is legally separate from them, is also fighting back. It countersued Energy Partners in the Netherlands in February, making use of a new anti-SLAPP directive in the EU that went into effect in May 2024.
Greenpeace International is only on the hook for a tiny fraction of the more than $600 million charged against the three Greenpeace bodies by the Morton County jury. Its countersuit in the EU wouldn't change what has happened in U.S. courts. Instead, it seeks to recover costs incurred by the Amsterdam-based branch during its years-long fights against the Morton County lawsuit and an earlier, federal case in 2017 that was eventually dismissed.
Greenpeace International's trial will begin in Dutch courts in July and is the first test of the EU's anti-SLAPP directive. According to Kristen Casper, general counsel for Greenpeace International, the branch in the EU has a strong case because the only action it took in support of the anti-pipeline protests was to sign an open letter — what she described as a clear case of protected public participation. Eric Heinze, a free speech expert and professor of law and humanities at Queen Mary University of London, said the case appeared 'black and white.'
'Normally I don't like to predict,' he said, 'but if I had to put money on this I would bet for Greenpeace to win.'
While Greenpeace's various entities may have to pay damages as ordered by U.S. courts, the result of the case in the EU, Casper said a victory would send an international message against 'corporate bullying and weaponization of the law.' Padmanabha said that regardless of the damages that the Greenpeace USA incurs, the organization isn't going away any time soon. 'You can't bankrupt the movement,' she said. 'What we work on, our campaigns and our commitments — that is not going to change.'
In response to request for comment, Energy Transfer said the Morton County jury's decision was a victory for the people of Mandan and 'for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law. That Greenpeace has been held responsible is a win for all of us.'
Nick Estes, an assistant professor of American Indian studies at the University of Minnesota and member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe who wrote a book about the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, said the case was about more than just punishing Greenpeace — it was a proxy attack on the water protectors at Standing Rock and the broader environmental justice movement. He said it showed what could happen 'if you step outside the path of what they consider as an acceptable form of protest.''They had to sidestep the actual context of the entire movement, around treaty rights, land rights, water rights, and tribal sovereignty because they couldn't win that fight,' he said. 'They had to go a circuitous route, and find a sympathetic court to attack the environmental movement.'
Janet Alkire, the chair of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said in a March 3 statement that the Morton County case was 'frivolously alleging defamation and seeking money damages, designed to shut down all voices supporting Standing Rock.' She said the company also used propaganda to discredit the tribe during and after the protests.'Part of the attack on our tribe is to attack our allies,' Alkire wrote. 'The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not be silenced.'This story has been updated.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A court ordered Greenpeace to pay a pipeline company $660M. What happens next? on Mar 21, 2025.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A judge's dismissal of Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is a win for Blake Lively, but it's not 'game over'
A judge's dismissal of Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is a win for Blake Lively, but it's not 'game over'

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

A judge's dismissal of Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is a win for Blake Lively, but it's not 'game over'

Legal experts say Blake Lively has scored a key legal win against Justin Baldoni. A New York judge dismissed Baldoni's defamation case against Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and the NYT. Still, one expert told BI it's not "game over" for Baldoni since "the judge has granted him permission to amend his claim." Blake Lively just scored a major win in her ongoing legal battle with "It Ends With Us" director-costar Justin Baldoni, but the court fight isn't over yet. Legal experts told Business Insider the dismissal of Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is an important win for Lively and her team, especially in a case where reputation is more at stake than money. "Even though it was a New York judge, the judge applied California law, and that's important because California is one of the most First Amendment-friendly states in the country," Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and cofounder of West Coast Trial Lawyers, told BI. Although the case was filed in New York, California laws apply because the events in question took place in the state. "The fact that the vast majority of the claims were dismissed with prejudice, which means that they can't be refiled, is a huge setback for Baldoni," Rahmani added. On Monday, a New York judge dismissed Baldoni's $400 million defamation countersuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and The New York Times. Baldoni argued that the parties conspired to destroy his career with false allegations after Lively filed a federal lawsuit against Baldoni, which accused him of sexual harassment and retaliation. In her complaint, Lively said that Baldoni and the producers of "It Ends With Us" orchestrated a smear campaign against her after she raised concerns about on-set conditions during the film's production. Baldoni has denied the allegations. A spokesperson for Lively said in a statement to BI that the lawsuit dismissal is "a total victory and a complete vindication" of the actor. "As we have said from day one, this '$400 million' lawsuit was a sham, and the Court saw right through it," said the spokesperson, who added that Lively plans to seek attorneys' fees, treble damages, and punitive damages from Baldoni and his associates. US District Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled that Lively's sexual harassment allegations in her lawsuit are legally protected speech. The judge also ruled Baldoni's allegations that Lively engaged in an extortion campaign to seize creative control of "It Ends With Us" from Baldoni did not qualify as civil extortion under California law. Liman says Baldoni can refile an amended suit against Lively regarding his contract breach and interference allegations. Baldoni has until June 23 to file that amended complaint. Baldoni's camp would not confirm to BI whether they would refile, but a statement from his attorney, Bryan Freedman, suggested that the director has plans to do just that. "Ms. Lively and her team's predictable declaration of victory is false, so let us be clear about the latest ruling. While the Court dismissed the defamation-related claims, the Court has invited us to amend four out of the seven claims against Ms. Lively, which will showcase additional evidence and refined allegations," Freedman said. Freedman added, "Most importantly, Ms. Lively's own claims are no truer today than they were yesterday, and with the facts on our side, we march forward with the same confidence that we had when Ms. Lively and her cohorts initiated this battle and look forward to her forthcoming deposition, which I will be taking." Camron Dowlatshahi of MSD Lawyers, who specializes in sexual harassment cases, told BI that the judge's dismissal is still a major victory for Lively at a very early stage of the case. "Baldoni can amend his complaint to properly allege a cause of action for defamation," said Dowlatshahi. "His amended complaint will likely face another motion to dismiss and cannot manufacture facts, so it remains to be seen whether Baldoni can get to the discovery stage of his case." Lively's lawsuit against Baldoni is still pending and could proceed to trial. Amber Melville-Brown, a media law specialist and partner at Withers, told BI there may be some hope left for Baldoni if he targets Lively's statements made outside her complaint, which may be less protected. "Libel litigation can be akin to spinning the roulette wheel or sitting down to a game of chance," said Melville-Brown. "So while Baldoni may have lost in this latest hand, it doesn't mean all bets are off. It's not necessarily game over because the judge has granted him permission to amend his claim." "That said, and I'm not a gambler myself. If he didn't play his strongest cards at the outset, it's not easy to see that he's going to come up with a winning hand second time around," Melville-Brown added. Read the original article on Business Insider

Press groups warn federal agents may have violated journalists' First Amendment rights in LA
Press groups warn federal agents may have violated journalists' First Amendment rights in LA

The Hill

time38 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Press groups warn federal agents may have violated journalists' First Amendment rights in LA

A handful of First Amendment advocacy groups are raising concerns about the treatment of journalists covering the ongoing protests in Los Angeles over federal immigration enforcement in the area by police. In a letter dated Tuesday and sent to the Department of Homeland Security, the First Amendment Coalition, Freedom of the Press Foundation and National Press Club wrote 'to express alarm that federal officers may have violated the First Amendment rights of journalists covering recent protests and unrest related to immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area.' 'A number of reports suggest that federal officers have indiscriminately used force or deployedmunitions such as tear gas or pepper balls that caused significant injuries to journalists,' the groups wrote in their letter. 'In some cases, federal officers appear to have deliberately targeted journalists who were doing nothing more than their job covering the news.' Many of the demonstrations in Los Angeles have turned violent, with protestors setting cars on fire and getting into tense confrontations with police. President Trump has called in National Guard troops to quell the violence and clashed with the state's governor over the crisis. 'To the extent that officers may lawfully use force against certain individuals who commit illegal acts, the force must be limited to responding to the conduct of those individuals, not used indiscriminately,' the groups wrote to DHS. 'To avoid any further First Amendment violations, please immediately ensure that any federal officers or personnel, or anyone acting under their direction and control, refrain from any unlawful, indiscriminate, and excessive use of force against members of the press and public who are merely covering events of public concern in the Los Angeles area.' The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A judge's dismissal of Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is a win for Blake Lively, but it's not 'game over'
A judge's dismissal of Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is a win for Blake Lively, but it's not 'game over'

Business Insider

timean hour ago

  • Business Insider

A judge's dismissal of Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is a win for Blake Lively, but it's not 'game over'

Blake Lively just scored a major win in her ongoing legal battle with " It Ends With Us" director-costar Justin Baldoni, but the court fight isn't over yet. Legal experts told Business Insider the dismissal of Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is an important win for Lively and her team, especially in a case where reputation is more at stake than money. "Even though it was a New York judge, the judge applied California law, and that's important because California is one of the most First Amendment-friendly states in the country," Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and cofounder of West Coast Trial Lawyers, told BI. Although the case was filed in New York, California laws apply because the events in question took place in the state. "The fact that the vast majority of the claims were dismissed with prejudice, which means that they can't be refiled, is a huge setback for Baldoni," Rahmani added. On Monday, a New York judge dismissed Baldoni's $400 million defamation countersuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and The New York Times. Baldoni argued that the parties conspired to destroy his career with false allegations after Lively filed a federal lawsuit against Baldoni, which accused him of sexual harassment and retaliation. In her complaint, Lively said that Baldoni and the producers of " It Ends With Us" orchestrated a smear campaign against her after she raised concerns about on-set conditions during the film's production. Baldoni has denied the allegations. A spokesperson for Lively said in a statement to BI that the lawsuit dismissal is "a total victory and a complete vindication" of the actor. "As we have said from day one, this '$400 million' lawsuit was a sham, and the Court saw right through it," said the spokesperson, who added that Lively plans to seek attorneys' fees, treble damages, and punitive damages from Baldoni and his associates. Why Baldoni's suit was dismissed US District Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled that Lively's sexual harassment allegations in her lawsuit are legally protected speech. The judge also ruled Baldoni's allegations that Lively engaged in an extortion campaign to seize creative control of "It Ends With Us" from Baldoni did not qualify as civil extortion under California law. Liman says Baldoni can refile an amended suit against Lively regarding his contract breach and interference allegations. Baldoni has until June 23 to file that amended complaint. Baldoni's camp would not confirm to BI whether they would refile, but a statement from his attorney, Bryan Freedman, suggested that the director has plans to do just that. "Ms. Lively and her team's predictable declaration of victory is false, so let us be clear about the latest ruling. While the Court dismissed the defamation-related claims, the Court has invited us to amend four out of the seven claims against Ms. Lively, which will showcase additional evidence and refined allegations," Freedman said. Freedman added, "Most importantly, Ms. Lively's own claims are no truer today than they were yesterday, and with the facts on our side, we march forward with the same confidence that we had when Ms. Lively and her cohorts initiated this battle and look forward to her forthcoming deposition, which I will be taking." Camron Dowlatshahi of MSD Lawyers, who specializes in sexual harassment cases, told BI that the judge's dismissal is still a major victory for Lively at a very early stage of the case. "Baldoni can amend his complaint to properly allege a cause of action for defamation," said Dowlatshahi. "His amended complaint will likely face another motion to dismiss and cannot manufacture facts, so it remains to be seen whether Baldoni can get to the discovery stage of his case." Liman is weighing whether to dismiss Lively's lawsuit against Baldoni or let it proceed to trial. Baldoni's fight isn't over, an expert says Amber Melville-Brown, a media law specialist and partner at Withers, told BI there may be some hope left for Baldoni if he targets Lively's statements made outside her complaint, which may be less protected. "Libel litigation can be akin to spinning the roulette wheel or sitting down to a game of chance," said Melville-Brown. "So while Baldoni may have lost in this latest hand, it doesn't mean all bets are off. It's not necessarily game over because the judge has granted him permission to amend his claim." "That said, and I'm not a gambler myself. If he didn't play his strongest cards at the outset, it's not easy to see that he's going to come up with a winning hand second time around," Melville-Brown added.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store