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

Why some Canadians are alarmed by Mark Carney's pledge to act with urgency
Why some Canadians are alarmed by Mark Carney's pledge to act with urgency

Hamilton Spectator

time29 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Why some Canadians are alarmed by Mark Carney's pledge to act with urgency

Canadians elected Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberal government based on its pledge to act with urgency and fix things — the country's economy, its security and its standing on the world stage. But with the unveiling of a bill to supercharge the economy and early efforts to improve the country's adversarial relations with India and China, there's growing concern that Carney's plans to boost Canada could involve unsavoury trade offs. Ask Indigenous leaders who were left out of 'nation-building' meetings or were given just a week to comment on legislation that will fast track infrastructure projects reasonably expected to pass through their treaty-protected territories. Ask Sikh-Canadian leaders who have seen their members targeted for death or violence, allegedly on orders from Indian government agents. Last Friday, they listened as Carney defended his G7 invitation to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as one that 'makes sense' based on India's economic power, population and key role in international 'supply chains.' Ask foreign aid organizations, perhaps, if Canada commits to radically increasing defence spending along with NATO allies at a leaders' summit planned for later this month. Carney is not alone in his apparent willingness to step on toes if it means he can move further and faster in responding to the sense of emergency at hand. It's part of a global movement with governments invoking looming threats and emerging risks to push through all sorts of questionable — and sometimes contestable — priorities. The most blatant example is the one that has sparked the economic emergency in Canada. U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs on imports have been pushed through not with legislation that can be studied, debated and voted upon, but through presidential executive orders invoking real or imagined national emergencies at the Canada-U. S. border. They are premised upon risks from America-bound migrants, fentanyl, steel and cars and, despite initial court rulings that tranches of the tariffs are illegal under U.S. law, they remain in effect. Likewise, the generalized panic that Russia's three-years-and-counting war against Ukraine has instilled in Europe. There is legitimate reason to worry about the longer-term intentions of Russian President Vladimir Putin, a leader who has been unwilling to agree to a ceasefire despite sanctions, despite diplomatic isolation, despite the more recent appeals, threats and exhortations of the Trump administration. But preparations for a potentially wider conflict on the European continent now have German officials talking about rehabilitating long-abandoned bunkers, Poland vowing to build up 'the strongest army in the region,' and Swedish households receiving an alarming 32-page pamphlet from their government entitled: 'In case of crisis or war.' 'To all residents of Sweden: we live in uncertain times,' the booklet begins ominously. It goes on to cover everything from securing one's home to digital safety to instructions on how to stop bleeding to advice about handling pets and talking to children. This is the political and emotional backdrop against which Canada and other NATO member states later this month are expected to back an agreement to steeply increase in their national defence budgets, moving to five per cent of GDP from two per cent. If agreed to, it will result in many billions of dollars going to weapons, tanks, planes and soldiers' salaries. But before those purchases can go ahead, there will be many difficult choices made about how to come up with the funds. Governments always talk about finding budget efficiencies for unexpected priorities, though saving is not a specialty for which politicians are well suited. Even Donald Trump and Elon Musk came up spectacularly short of their savings pledges through the Department of Government Efficiency. More frequently, governments end up robbing Peter in order to pay Paul, as the saying goes — cutting spending in on domain to increase it in another. That is exactly what the United Kingdom did with blunt effect when it announced earlier this year that it would slash foreign aid spending drastically in order to increase the defence budget. 'Few countries have articulated such a direct, one-to-one trade off before between those two areas of public spending,' noted a report from ODI Global , a think tank, that criticized the British government for thinking of defence and foreign-aid spending as an either-or choice. Similar potential trade offs are cause for concern in Canada. Will the urgency to build oil pipelines and assert the country as an 'energy superpower' in new markets come at the cost of Canada's fight against global warming? Carney's reputation as a climate-change warrior is well-established, but his use of the oil-and-gas industry's ' marketing speak ' at a recent meeting first ministers' meeting with provincial premiers has some worried about the economy taking priority over the environment. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national association representing Canadian Inuit, wasn't even invited to the first ministers' meeting, which concluded with a statement about the need to 'unlock the North's economic potential.' 'It is troubling that in 2025, the Government of Canada is so comfortable with empty rhetoric in place of rightful participation,' the Inuit association said in a news release . The legislation to get Carney's economic fast-track transformation under way — one that the Liberal government wants to pass into law by Canada Day — was decried by the Assembly of First Nations, which had just seven days to provide any concerns about the bill, APTN News reported . There are those who will defend a go-fast approach to governing in extraordinary times. They will warn that there is a greater risk in being sunk by the status quo — the never-ending consultations, the delays, red-tape entanglements. 'The advantage of a wartime mentality lies in the sense of urgency it introduces, and the readiness it encourages to push aside unnecessary bureaucratic barriers,' wrote Lawrence Freedman, an emeritus professor of War Studies at King's College London, in a piece about Russia, Ukraine and Europe. It's a line that can be applied as equally to Ottawa as to Moscow, Kyiv, Paris, Brussels or London. But one person's bureaucratic barrier is the next person's guard rail — a measure ensuring confidence, protecting against damaging errors, saving lives. Moving at high speeds, it can be difficult to spot the difference.

Sexual assault survivors calling on Ontario to lift policy that limits access to community justice programs
Sexual assault survivors calling on Ontario to lift policy that limits access to community justice programs

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Sexual assault survivors calling on Ontario to lift policy that limits access to community justice programs

Marlee Liss still remembers how dehumanizing it felt to sit through the preliminary trial of the man accused of sexually assaulting her, disturbed by how she was treated while testifying, as she answered a series of invasive questions. It took three years for the Toronto woman's case to make it to trial. The whole time, she said, she didn't necessarily want her alleged assailant to go to jail — she just wanted him to take accountability. Thanks to a referral from her Crown attorney, the case was put on pause in 2019 so that Liss could pursue a community justice program, also known as restorative justice. There, she got to hear her alleged assailant take accountability in a private room, apologizing to her directly. He also underwent months of therapy. Liss said the prosecutor agreeing to resolve the case outside the daunting courtroom was the most healing moment in the entire process. "It was the first time someone was finally saying … 'Your voice matters, what you need matters, your boundaries matter, your healing matters. Let's act according to what you need,'" said Liss, who is the founder of the global advocacy group, Survivors 4 Justice Reform. Because the case was diverted from the court system, Liss's alleged assailant did not receive a criminal conviction, but by the time the community justice program was complete, Liss said she was confident he wouldn't re-offend. Liss's experience is rare. In Ontario, sexual offences are among a list of serious offences deemed ineligible for referral to community justice programs by Crown prosecutors. According to a 2023 report from the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), the Crown attorney for Liss's case was later formally disciplined for her actions. Survivors 4 Justice Reform is calling on the province to scrap that policy. The group has written an open letter to the Ministry of the Attorney General, co-signed by 50 individuals and organizations that work with and advocate for sexual assault survivors. "Denying survivors this option perpetuates a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to meet the complex realities of sexual violence," says the letter, shared publicly on Monday. A spokesperson for the minister of the Attorney General declined to comment, having not yet seen the letter. Charlotte Carron then declined to answer questions from CBC about the policy of not referring sexual assault cases to community justice programs and whether that might be changed in the future. "It would not be appropriate to comment on this topic without seeing the letter," she said via email. Restorative justice can take different forms, including therapy, healing circles rooted in Indigenous practices, rehab programs or volunteer work. People accused of crimes have to assume responsibility for their actions and be willing to make "meaningful amends" to participate, according to the province's Crown Prosecution Manual. "The idea that restorative justice could be a thing that lets perpetrators off the hook — I think we have to start by recognizing perpetrators are not on the hook right now with the criminal legal system," said Liss. Right now, community justice programs are available in Ontario to sexual assault survivors who haven't reported their case to police. But many don't know that's an option, Liss said. She says people's first instinct is to call the police, and once a case is in the legal system it's too late. "We really want it to be possible for people who are already going through the criminal legal system to be able to change their mind … that's what consent is," Liss said. Emily Quint says she wishes she'd known about restorative justice as the sexual assault case against her alleged assailant was going through the legal system. The charges were eventually stayed because of an unreasonable delay in 2023. Hers was one of 59 sexual assault cases that year in Ontario which were stayed due to delays, according to data from from the Ministry of the Attorney General. "I was re-traumatized, re-victimized, just treated like I was absolutely nothing," she said. WATCH | Emily Quint's case tossed over court delays: While she understands why many survivors want to see their assailants punished, Quint says it was never about that for her. "I wanted to stand up and say, 'this is what happened to me and it wasn't OK,'" she said. " I wanted healing for myself, healing for him, counselling for myself, counselling for him." Lack of access is another barrier Lawyer Deepa Mattoo said she's seen many survivors prefer seeking justice outside the court in her time as director of the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, which supports survivors of gender-based violence. She says they would go to the Human Rights Tribunal or the now-defunct Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Mattoo agrees survivors should have greater choice, but says the clinic tends not to refer them to restorative justice programs because of low availability for those services throughout the province. "Those options need to be designed and available in [the] community for people to be referred out to," Mattoo said. The policy barring prosecutors from referring sexual assault survivors to these programs is a big reason that programs are under-resourced, according to Rosel Kim, a senior staff lawyer at LEAF, one of the organizations that co-signed the open letter. Not only should the province relax its policy, Kim says, but it should also increase the funding for the programs as well. "If you just sort of lift the moratorium, but they don't provide options, that's not meaningful either," Kim said.

THPD Detective Josh Loudermilk to speak at Crimes Against Children press conference
THPD Detective Josh Loudermilk to speak at Crimes Against Children press conference

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

THPD Detective Josh Loudermilk to speak at Crimes Against Children press conference

TERRE HAUTE, Ind. (WTWO/WAWV) — The Indiana Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force will provide an update on Operation Safe Online Summer during a press conference in Indianapolis, featuring Terre Haute Police Department Detective Josh Loudermilk. Operation Safe Online Summer is an Internet Crimes Against Children-led national effort to identify and increase the concentration of investigations, arrests, training and outreach efforts in the area of technology-facilitated crimes against children during the month of April. Indiana Internet Crimes Against Children statistic in 2024 The speakers during the press conference include: Josh Loudermilk, Detective from the Terre Haute Police Department First Sergeant Christopher Cecil, Indiana ICAC Task Force Commander Chris Bailey, Chief of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Michael Diekhoff, Chief of the Bloomington Police Department Andrew Hanna, Chief Deputy Prosecutor from the Madison County Prosecutor's Office The press conference will be held on Tuesday, June 10, at 1:00 p.m., at the Indiana State Police ICAC Unit, 8468 E. 21st St., Indianapolis, Indiana 46219. Indianapolis child porn arrest called one of the worst IMPD has ever seen Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

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