Latest news with #DAPL
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Standing Rock appeals dismissal of latest Dakota Access Pipeline lawsuit
Opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline gather Nov. 1, 2023, in Bismarck ahead of a public meeting on an environmental impact statement. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe opposes the pipeline, citing concerns for its water supply and sovereign rights. (Kyle Martin/For the North Dakota Monitor) The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review a federal judge's decision to dismiss its latest lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the Dakota Access Pipeline. Standing Rock filed the lawsuit in October, asking the court to find the pipeline must be shut down because it still lacks an easement authorizing it to pass under the Missouri River's Lake Oahe reservoir, which is regulated by the Army Corps. 'The Corps of Engineers has not earned the trust of our Tribe,' Standing Rock Chairwoman Janet Alkire said in a statement last week announcing the appeal. 'We cannot rely on the Corps to properly evaluate DAPL, so we are continuing our legal efforts to protect our water and our people from this dangerous pipeline.' Greenpeace seeks reversal of verdict, arguing jury wanted to 'punish' someone for pipeline protests The Army Corps originally granted the easement to the pipeline's developer in 2017, but Boasberg revoked it in 2020 after finding the agency had issued the permit without completing the full environmental review required by federal law. The matter was brought to him through a lawsuit the tribe filed against the Army Corps in 2016. Boasberg at the time directed the Corps to withhold making a decision on the easement until it completes a full environmental impact study. He also ordered the pipeline to be shut down, though that demand was later reversed by an appellate court. Five years later, the Army Corps still has not finished the environmental review. It published a draft in late 2023. Standing Rock in its latest suit argues that keeping the pipeline open without an easement is a violation of federal law. The tribe also alleges the Army Corps is at fault for a number of other regulatory violations related to the pipeline. In court filings, Standing Rock has said it intends to present new evidence related to the pipeline's safety. The pipeline company has indicated previously it does not consider that information credible. U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg tossed the suit in March, finding that the courts cannot intervene in the matter until the Army Corps wraps up its environmental study. 'No matter its frustration with Defendants' sluggish pace, it is not yet entitled to a second bite at the apple,' he wrote in his March order. Boasberg previously indicated that while the agency works on the study, it has the option of enforcing its property rights since the pipeline is operating on federal land without authorization. 'The Corps has conspicuously declined to adopt a conclusive position regarding the pipeline's continued operation, despite repeated prodding from this Court and the Court of Appeals to do so,' he wrote in a 2021 order. Standing Rock leaders say they hope the D.C. Circuit will overturn Boasberg's decision to dismiss the case. In her statement, Alkire said the tribe fears the Army Corps' study will 'whitewash' the pipeline's risk to the surrounding environment. The pipeline crosses Lake Oahe just north of the Standing Rock Reservation. The tribe opposes the Dakota Access Pipeline as a threat to its sovereignty, water supply and cultural heritage sites. Federal judge dismisses Standing Rock's latest lawsuit over Dakota Access Pipeline Alkire also underscored the tribe's dismay over a March jury verdict that found the environmental group Greenpeace at fault for damaging the pipeline developers property and business as part of its protests against Dakota Access Pipeline. The jury ordered Greenpeace to pay the company, Energy Transfer, roughly $667 million. Standing Rock has criticized the verdict as based on a false narrative that Greenpeace, and not Standing Rock and other tribes, led the protests. 'We saw Energy Transfer's efforts to re-write history as we know it and lived it in their lawsuit against Greenpeace,' she said. In April, another federal judge ordered the Army Corps to pay North Dakota $28 million in connection to the anti-pipeline protests, finding the agency's actions had wrongfully forced the state to pay millions policing the protests and cleaning up the aftermath. The Dakota Access Pipeline passes through unceded land previously recognized as belonging to the Sioux Nation in 19th century treaties with the U.S. government. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Controversial climate group facing bankruptcy, how did it get here?
One of the leading global environmental networks has been drained of hundreds of millions over the years as a result of several lawsuits filed against their involvement in anti-oil protests. Greenpeace, an international environmentalist group, has been at the center of several highly controversial environmental cases over the years and has been accused of hiring protesters and rioters to advance their cause. Most recently, Greenpeace was found liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages resulting from a pipeline protest. The group recently said that such a ruling could "shut down Greenpeace USA." Here are some of the top cases that got Greenpeace to the dire straits it is in right now. More than 800 people were arrested in 2016 during a monthslong protest, led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, opposing construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), an oil pipeline that runs from North Dakota to Illinois. Jury Finds Greenpeace Liable, Ordered To Pay Hundreds Of Millions Over Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Protests Read On The Fox News App Energy Transfer, the developer of the pipeline, sued Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International for $300 million on claims the climate groups orchestrated the protests by providing resources to the activists and, therefore, were liable for the expenses that resulted from construction being postponed. In March 2025, a North Dakota jury found Greenpeace liable for about $660 million resulting from the protest. Greenpeace Vows More Legal Action After Getting Hit With $660M Ruling That Would 'Shut Down' Organization "Our lawsuit is about recovering damages for the harm Greenpeace caused our company. It is not about free speech. Their organizing, funding, and encouraging the unlawful destruction of property and the dissemination of misinformation goes well beyond the exercise of free speech. We look forward to proving our case, and we trust the North Dakota legal system to do that." The weekslong Morton County trial, which began in late February, heard testimony that claimed that Greenpeace not only trained the DAPL protesters, but purchased supplies to aid their resistance. Greenpeace described the battle as "one of the most consequential free speech cases in recent history." Greenpeace settled a lawsuit with Shell after four individuals affiliated with the group boarded and occupied a Shell oil company vessel for two weeks in 2023. The activists "unlawfully scaled" a moving vessel in the North Sea while carrying a banner reading "Stop Drilling. Start Paying." Because of this incident, Greenpeace was ordered to make a payment of 300k pounds to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and the group was barred from going within 500 meters of a Shell platform in the North Sea. In 2020, the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled against Greenpeace's attempt to block new oil exploration in the country. Greenpeace was joined by Young Friends of the Earth Norway in a 2016 lawsuit filed against the Norwegian Government after several new oil and gas leases were granted in the Balian Sea. The lawsuit, known as "People vs. the Arctic," was the first case to challenge the country's constitution on environmental rights. The environmental groups claimed that the Arctic drilling would violate Section 112 of the Norwegian Constitution, which states that everyone has the right to a healthy environment. Despite extensive appeals, Greenpeace failed to secure a single victory in the Norwegian court system, which found at every level that the government in that they did not violate the country's constitution. Dark Money Fund Poured Millions Of Dollars Into Eco Activist Groups Blocking Highways, Destroying Famous Art Commenting on the North Dakota ruling, a representative for Energy Transfer told Fox News Digital it was "very pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us and that the jury recognized these were not law-abiding, peaceful protests as Greenpeace tried to claim." The representative said their victory was shared with the local native tribe and people throughout North Dakota who "had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace." "It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law," said the representative, adding, "that Greenpeace has been held responsible is a win for all of us." Sushma Raman, a representative for Greenpeace USA, told Fox News Digital that the group will be appealing the decision, saying, "we will not back down from this fight, and we will not be silenced." Greenpeace Co-founder: No Scientific Proof Humans Are Dominant Cause Of Warming Climate Raman said that Energy Transfer "knows we don't have $660 million" and claimed "they want our silence, not our money." "This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations," she said. "It's part of a renewed push by corporations to weaponize our courts to silence dissent. We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech." A representative for Greenpeace International pointed out to Fox News Digital that the ruling does not impact Greenpeace's 24 other national and regional organizations. The representative said these groups will "continue functioning as normal even in the worst case scenario." The representative also pointed out that Greenpeace is counter-suing Energy Transfer in a Netherlands court to recover all fines lost in the North Dakota article source: Controversial climate group facing bankruptcy, how did it get here?
Fox News
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Controversial climate group facing bankruptcy, how did it get here?
One of the leading global environmental networks has been drained of hundreds of millions over the years as a result of several lawsuits filed against their involvement in anti-oil protests. Greenpeace, an international environmentalist group, has been at the center of several highly controversial environmental cases over the years and has been accused of hiring protesters and rioters to advance their cause. Most recently, Greenpeace was found liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages resulting from a pipeline protest. The group recently said that such a ruling could "shut down Greenpeace USA." Here are some of the top cases that got Greenpeace to the dire straits it is in right now. More than 800 people were arrested in 2016 during a monthslong protest, led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, opposing construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), an oil pipeline that runs from North Dakota to Illinois. Energy Transfer, the developer of the pipeline, sued Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International for $300 million on claims the climate groups orchestrated the protests by providing resources to the activists and, therefore, were liable for the expenses that resulted from construction being postponed. In March 2025, a North Dakota jury found Greenpeace liable for about $660 million resulting from the protest. "Our lawsuit is about recovering damages for the harm Greenpeace caused our company. It is not about free speech. Their organizing, funding, and encouraging the unlawful destruction of property and the dissemination of misinformation goes well beyond the exercise of free speech. We look forward to proving our case, and we trust the North Dakota legal system to do that." The weekslong Morton County trial, which began in late February, heard testimony that claimed that Greenpeace not only trained the DAPL protesters, but purchased supplies to aid their resistance. Greenpeace described the battle as "one of the most consequential free speech cases in recent history." Greenpeace settled a lawsuit with Shell after four individuals affiliated with the group boarded and occupied a Shell oil company vessel for two weeks in 2023. The activists "unlawfully scaled" a moving vessel in the North Sea while carrying a banner reading "Stop Drilling. Start Paying." Because of this incident, Greenpeace was ordered to make a payment of 300k pounds to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and the group was barred from going within 500 meters of a Shell platform in the North Sea. In 2020, the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled against Greenpeace's attempt to block new oil exploration in the country. Greenpeace was joined by Young Friends of the Earth Norway in a 2016 lawsuit filed against the Norwegian Government after several new oil and gas leases were granted in the Balian Sea. The lawsuit, known as "People vs. the Arctic," was the first case to challenge the country's constitution on environmental rights. The environmental groups claimed that the Arctic drilling would violate Section 112 of the Norwegian Constitution, which states that everyone has the right to a healthy environment. Despite extensive appeals, Greenpeace failed to secure a single victory in the Norwegian court system, which found at every level that the government in that they did not violate the country's constitution. Commenting on the North Dakota ruling, a representative for Energy Transfer told Fox News Digital it was "very pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us and that the jury recognized these were not law-abiding, peaceful protests as Greenpeace tried to claim." The representative said their victory was shared with the local native tribe and people throughout North Dakota who "had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace." "It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law," said the representative, adding, "that Greenpeace has been held responsible is a win for all of us." Sushma Raman, a representative for Greenpeace USA, told Fox News Digital that the group will be appealing the decision, saying, "we will not back down from this fight, and we will not be silenced." Raman said that Energy Transfer "knows we don't have $660 million" and claimed "they want our silence, not our money." "This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations," she said. "It's part of a renewed push by corporations to weaponize our courts to silence dissent. We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech." A representative for Greenpeace International pointed out to Fox News Digital that the ruling does not impact Greenpeace's 24 other national and regional organizations. The representative said these groups will "continue functioning as normal even in the worst case scenario." The representative also pointed out that Greenpeace is counter-suing Energy Transfer in a Netherlands court to recover all fines lost in the North Dakota case.
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A $300 Million Lawsuit Is Threatening a Storied Activist Group. You Should Be Worried.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. This week marks the official kickoff of a long-brewing, high-stakes trial that could change the American environmental movement forever—and crush Americans' First Amendment rights. In a North Dakota district court, Texas pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners is accusing the international environmental organization Greenpeace of single-handedly organizing a disruptive and raucous protest of its most controversial project: the Dakota Access Pipeline. If successful, Energy Transfer's $300 million lawsuit may end up bankrupting the advocacy group as a whole, both domestically and internationally. As construction began in the mid-2010s, the pipeline threatened sacred sites and a key water source (Lake Oahe) for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and their cross–Dakota border reservation. Opposition to the DAPL then flared up in a series of monthslong direct-action protests that attracted worldwide attention and solidarity from environmentalists, climate change activists, and celebrities who personally came to the Standing Rock Reservation. Local police and National Guard members deployed increasingly brutal tactics to suppress the protesters, fueling more public sympathy with the Sioux Tribe's cause and leading the Army Corps of Engineers, in December of 2016, to forbid the DAPL from extending its pipe underneath the Missouri River. That victory was brief. When Donald Trump took office in early 2017, he rolled back the Obama administration's Missouri River order, allowing the pipeline to complete construction and go into operation. (Subsequent legal challenges failed to stop the DAPL.) Energy Transfer still went on a lawsuit offensive, filing federal RICO charges against Greenpeace and other environmental nonprofits in the summer of 2017. The initial accusations—that Greenpeace 'employ[ed] a pattern of criminal activity and a campaign of misinformation' to encourage banks to sever ties with the company, causing 'enormous harm to people and property along the pipeline's route'—were dismissed by a North Dakota federal court in February 2019. Energy Transfer refiled the non-RICO cases in state court just one week later and soon narrowed the scope of its charges, which lie at the center of today's court battle. Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace Fund, and Greenpeace International are alleged to have damaged Energy Transfer's business by defaming it, engaged in tortious interference by campaigning for banks to boycott Energy Transfer and its projects, and trespassed illegally on the disputed property. The deliberation over these accusations is set to take five weeks and wrap up by March 27. Even in refined form, these charges are more than a tad suspicious. Anyone who observed and reported on the DAPL movement in real time knows the primary organizers and protesters were Standing Rock Sioux leaders, against whom Energy Transfer had already brought myriad unsuccessful charges. Greenpeace representatives numbered just a few among the many Americans and international activists who supported the Native Americans. As Greenpeace USA national campaigns director Rolf Skar told me, the only noted action that his group took to support the campaign for financial institutions to divest from Energy Transfer was co-signing an open letter to the relevant banks in 2016—alongside hundreds of other signatories. As for the money, with the exception of a 2020 COVID-era crash that hit the entire fossil-fuel industry, Energy Transfer's annual revenues have steadily grown since 2016. Meanwhile, the Dakota Access Pipeline itself keeps flowing—and leaking. Energy Transfer CEO Kelcy Warren, a regular Donald Trump donor since 2016, has not been shy about his intentions with Greenpeace. In a 2017 interview with North Dakota's Valley News Live, Warren declared his 'primary objective' with the RICO suit was 'to send a message' to other environmentalists. In another interview that same year, with CNBC, Warren claimed outright that he was trying to 'cease funding' for Greenpeace. In 2021, when DAPL protester Jessica Reznicek was sentenced to prison and deemed a 'domestic terrorist' for damaging some pipeline equipment (without harming other humans), Warren referred to her as 'somebody who needs to be removed from the gene pool.' While some Greenpeace representatives showed up at Standing Rock in 2016, no one from the group has been directly affiliated with actions like Reznicek's. 'The most concerning thing is the idea that any participation in a protest means that you're held liable for the actions of other people, even if you're not associated with them or if they're never identified,' said Skar. So, even though Greenpeace wasn't accused of breaking DAPL construction equipment, Energy Transfers is 'still trying to make us responsible for those alleged actions.' (In a statement it emailed to all news organizations, including Slate, Energy Transfers countered that 'Our lawsuit against Greenpeace is about them not following the law. It is not about free speech as they are trying to claim.') For a case with such massive stakes over legal culpability in public expression, there won't be much transparency, besides some independent legal watchdogs acting as trial monitors. As the North Dakota Monitor reported this week: 'In an unusual move for North Dakota courts, [the judge] has so far denied media requests for photography or recording inside the courtroom. He also has denied requests to livestream the trial.' Climate reporter and Drilled Media editor Alleen Brown noted on Bluesky that these restrictions extend even to sheer note-taking on paper, forcing her to rely on notes she penned on her hands. By the time jury selection wrapped Tuesday, she was still able to report that 7 of the 11 jurors selected have ties to the fossil-fuel industry, whether as employees, spouses of employees, or rightsholders to oil and gas deposits. As eyebrow-raising as this is, it wasn't unexpected, which was why Greenpeace has tried (and failed) to get the case moved from this jurisdiction. The fossil-fuel industry remains so essential to North Dakota, as a key site for fracking booms and busts, that ex-Gov. Doug Burgum is now the nation's Interior secretary—and he's already ripping up environmental regulations in order to benefit the oil industry. (This is the same guy who brokered that infamous meeting last year where Trump requested $1 billion from oil executives for his campaign.) Plus, North Dakota is one of the few U.S. states without legal protections against strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, of which Energy Transfer's case appears to be a clear example. To add to all this, the climate blogs DeSmog and ExxonKnews have reported that Energy Transfer's CEO made a $5 million donation to the Turnout for America super PAC in September. Just two weeks later, that group paid $250,000 to a Chicago-based publisher frequently used by conservative PACs, North CB Corporation, for 'media services.' North CB's only publicly listed director is Brian T. Timpone, who also owns a different media company that produces 'pink slime' propaganda outlets masquerading as legitimate newspapers. One such outlet is 'Central ND News,' which was packed with pro–Energy Transfer, anti-protest tirades and mailed to Morton County residents in October. Greenpeace's lawyers requested that the district judge investigate these ties, only to be shot down. The advantages are clearly weighted toward fossil-fuel interests, which is why the $300 million damages at stake present an existential financial threat to an already overstrapped organization that's had to undergo several other legal battles. 'They know that Greenpeace and other NGOs don't have $300 million,' Skar said. 'This case is asking for money that they know we don't have, that they don't need for a pipeline that was already operating and making them money many years ago.' Disagreements between Greenpeace USA's leadership and its advisory board over how to proceed—namely, whether to settle with Energy Transfer or keep up the risky fight—led to last year's ouster of the organization's first Black woman executive director. Her replacement is still acting in an interim capacity. The best legal card Greenpeace may have in its pocket right now is its ongoing employment of what the New York Times calls 'a novel tactic.' Earlier this month, the Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International branch filed an anti-intimidation suit against Energy Transfer in the Dutch capital's district court, relying on the European Union's recent legal mandate to restrict the use of SLAPPs in the region's courts. If successful, the lawsuit could get Greenpeace International extra compensation from Energy Transfer for the time it's spent defending itself from the oil-and-gas corporation. However, as one Greenpeace insider informed me, there likely won't be any further movement on this case until April—after the North Dakota suit will probably have been decided. Meanwhile, grassroots revolts against fossil-fuel exploration are even more fraught than they were in 2016. The prominence of the DAPL protests has inspired at least 19 Republican-dominated states to pass laws forbidding protests of 'critical infrastructure'—including oil and gas pipelines. (Challenges to Virginia's and Louisiana's laws, the latter of which revolve around a different Energy Transfer pipeline, are currently being heard in court.) And the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has not given up its fight against the DAPL, having filed a new lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers with the claim that the pipeline is operating illegally. Meanwhile, Greenpeace itself is still suing the Trump administration over its environmental rollbacks and launching public campaigns to draw awareness to the North Dakota case, including an open letter to Energy Transfer that's been co-signed by hundreds of supporters, including celebrities like Billie Eilish. The fight for the right to protect our waters continues.
