Latest news with #DakotaAccessPipeline
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
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Greenpeace seeks reversal of verdict, arguing jury wanted to ‘punish' someone for pipeline protests
Greenpeace Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha, second from left, and other attorneys representing Greenpeace speak to the media March 19, 2025, outside the Morton County Courthouse. (Amy Dalrymple/North Dakota Monitor) Attorneys for Greenpeace argued this week that a jury's decision ordering it to pay $667 million to the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline cannot stand. A Morton County jury delivered the verdict on March 19 after more than three weeks of trial. Jurors found the environmental group responsible for damages related to anti-pipeline protests in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017, as well as for publishing defamatory statements about Energy Transfer. Greenpeace says the jury's decision was not based on fact, but bias against the protest movement. 'What the verdict in this case reflected, your honor, is the community's desire to punish someone who was involved in the protests,' said Everett Jack, an attorney representing Greenpeace's U.S. affiliate. The arguments followed a hearing earlier this month during which Greenpeace asked Southwest Judicial District Court Judge James Gion to reduce the $667 million award if he moves forward with a judgment against the environmental group. Energy Transfer wants Gion to uphold the jury's decision in full. Jury finds Greenpeace at fault for protest damages, awards pipeline developer more than $660 million The award includes more than $200 million of compensatory damages — or money meant to make the plaintiffs whole for financial harms — and another roughly $400 million in punitive damages. Energy Transfer's core argument is that Greenpeace trained protesters to wage violent attacks to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline and that it deliberately published false statements to sabotage the company's business. Greenpeace was one of many activist groups that sent representatives to south-central North Dakota to protest in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It denies Energy Transfer's allegations and says the lawsuit is an attempt to discourage environmental activism. During a Tuesday hearing, attorneys representing the environmental group doubled down on their claims that Energy Transfer presented no concrete evidence during the trial that Greenpeace caused the company to suffer financially. The lawsuit is against three Greenpeace entities: Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund, its United States-based fundraising arm. Only Greenpeace USA had employees at the protests. Greenpeace USA says it had six staff members visit to provide peripheral support to the Indigenous-led demonstrations, including supplies and nonviolent trainings. Energy Transfer attorney Trey Cox argued that Gion has no reason not to honor the jury's verdict. Cox said the acts the jury found Greenpeace liable for — including defamatory speech, trespassing and abuse of property — do not count as constitutionally protected speech. 'They're trying to wrap themselves in the First Amendment,' he said. Cox said Greenpeace is willfully ignoring documentation Energy Transfer presented to the jury linking Greenpeace personnel to attacks against the pipeline, and that the jury's decision is the most important indicator of the evidence's credibility. Attorneys also asked Gion to toss the jury's verdict finding the three organizations liable for defamation. Energy Transfer alleges that Greenpeace published nine defamatory statements about the Dakota Access Pipeline that harmed the energy company's business relationships. In the United States, the standard for proving defamation claims is high — especially for individuals and organizations in the public eye. Greenpeace attorneys said the nine statements don't meet this threshold for multiple reasons. For one, each of the nine statements was either factually true or reflected opinions about what happened at Standing Rock, Jack said. Energy Transfer also did not demonstrate that Greenpeace made the statements knowing they were false or with 'reckless disregard' for their veracity, which are other key standards required for proving defamation, he added. Greenpeace has also said it was not the first to circulate the statements, and that they were contemporaneously published by hundreds of other organizations and media outlets. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Judges must act as the 'gatekeeper' on defamation claims to make sure the decision does not violate free speech rights, Adam Caldwell, an attorney representing Greenpeace International, argued. This standard was set in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case on defamation New York Times v. Sullivan, he said. Jack also argued that under North Dakota law, proving a defamation claim requires that a third party testify that they believe the statements in question are defamatory. He said none of Energy Transfer's witnesses fulfilled this requirement. He pointed to the testimony of Greenpeace employees who said they believed the statements were true and came from credible sources. Cox said jurors likely rejected this testimony as unconvincing. 'Given the very large exemplary damage award, we can readily infer that this jury found these witnesses to be liars,' Cox said. 'We found them to be concealing things, to be hiding things, to be non-credible.' Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund — which does not engage in organizing activities — say Energy Transfer has no right to involve them in the case. Neither had any personnel visit North Dakota. Greenpeace International says it is not subject to the court's jurisdiction because it is a Netherlands-based organization that was not involved in the protests. 'The only evidence was affirmative evidence from International that it had never set foot in North Dakota,' Caldwell said. 'It's a textbook case of lack of personal jurisdiction.' While Greenpeace International did sign onto a letter that included two of the statements the jury found defamatory, it was one of more than 500 signatories, he said. Greenpeace Fund similarly said there was no evidence linking it to the case. 'We shouldn't be here,' said Matt Kelly, an attorney representing the organization. Energy Transfer has argued that Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International conspired with Greenpeace USA on its anti-pipeline efforts. The jury found Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA liable for conspiracy, but not Greenpeace Fund. Gion took the motions under advisement. The parties also recently presented arguments on a separate set of motions asking Gion to reduce the jury's nearly $667 million award against Greenpeace. Greenpeace claims the award exceeds statutory caps on damages and that the verdict is riddled with inconsistencies. If the jury's decision is allowed to stand, defendants have the option to appeal the verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International have disclosed their intent to appeal. This story was originally published by the North Dakota Monitor. Like South Dakota Searchlight, it's part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. North Dakota Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Amy Dalrymple for questions: info@
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Greenpeace seeks reversal of verdict, arguing jury wanted to ‘punish' someone for pipeline protests
Snow covers the ground at Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on Dec. 3, 2016, outside Cannon Ball, N.D. (Photo by) Attorneys for Greenpeace argued this week that a jury's decision ordering it to pay $667 million to the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline cannot stand. A Morton County jury delivered the verdict on March 19 after more than three weeks of trial. Jurors found the environmental group responsible for damages related to anti-pipeline protests in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017, as well as for publishing defamatory statements about Energy Transfer. Greenpeace says the jury's decision was not based on fact, but bias against the protest movement. 'What the verdict in this case reflected, your honor, is the community's desire to punish someone who was involved in the protests,' said Everett Jack, an attorney representing Greenpeace's U.S. affiliate. More Dakota Access Pipeline coverage The arguments followed a hearing earlier this month during which Greenpeace asked Southwest Judicial District Court Judge James Gion to reduce the $667 million award if he moves forward with a judgment against the environmental group. Energy Transfer wants Gion to uphold the jury's decision in full. The award includes more than $200 million of compensatory damages — or money meant to make the plaintiffs whole for financial harms — and another roughly $400 million in punitive damages. Energy Transfer's core argument is that Greenpeace trained protesters to wage violent attacks to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline and that it deliberately published false statements to sabotage the company's business. Greenpeace was one of many activist groups that sent representatives to south-central North Dakota to protest in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It denies Energy Transfer's allegations and says the lawsuit is an attempt to discourage environmental activism. During a Tuesday hearing, attorneys representing the environmental group doubled down on their claims that Energy Transfer presented no concrete evidence during the trial that Greenpeace caused the company to suffer financially. The lawsuit is against three Greenpeace entities: Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund, its United States-based fundraising arm. Only Greenpeace USA had employees at the protests. Greenpeace USA says it had six staff members visit to provide peripheral support to the Indigenous-led demonstrations, including supplies and nonviolent trainings. Energy Transfer attorney Trey Cox argued that Gion has no reason not to honor the jury's verdict. Cox said the acts the jury found Greenpeace liable for — including defamatory speech, trespassing and abuse of property — do not count as constitutionally protected speech. 'They're trying to wrap themselves in the First Amendment,' he said. Cox said Greenpeace is willfully ignoring documentation Energy Transfer presented to the jury linking Greenpeace personnel to attacks against the pipeline, and that the jury's decision is the most important indicator of the evidence's credibility. Attorneys also asked Gion to toss the jury's verdict finding the three organizations liable for defamation. Energy Transfer alleges that Greenpeace published nine defamatory statements about the Dakota Access Pipeline that harmed the energy company's business relationships. In the United States, the standard for proving defamation claims is high — especially for individuals and organizations in the public eye. Greenpeace attorneys said the nine statements don't meet this threshold for multiple reasons. Jury finds Greenpeace at fault for protest damages, awards pipeline developer more than $660 million For one, each of the nine statements was either factually true or reflected opinions about what happened at Standing Rock, Jack said. Energy Transfer also did not demonstrate that Greenpeace made the statements knowing they were false or with 'reckless disregard' for their veracity, which are other key standards required for proving defamation, he added. Greenpeace has also said it was not the first to circulate the statements, and that they were contemporaneously published by hundreds of other organizations and media outlets. Judges must act as the 'gatekeeper' on defamation claims to make sure the decision does not violate free speech rights, Adam Caldwell, an attorney representing Greenpeace International, argued. This standard was set in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case on defamation New York Times v. Sullivan, he said. Jack also argued that under North Dakota law, proving a defamation claim requires that a third party testify that they believe the statements in question are defamatory. He said none of Energy Transfer's witnesses fulfilled this requirement. He pointed to the testimony of Greenpeace employees who said they believed the statements were true and came from credible sources. Cox said jurors likely rejected this testimony as unconvincing. 'Given the very large exemplary damage award, we can readily infer that this jury found these witnesses to be liars,' Cox said. 'We found them to be concealing things, to be hiding things, to be non-credible.' Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund — which does not engage in organizing activities — say Energy Transfer has no right to involve them in the case. Neither had any personnel visit North Dakota. Greenpeace International says it is not subject to the court's jurisdiction because it is a Netherlands-based organization that was not involved in the protests. 'The only evidence was affirmative evidence from International that it had never set foot in North Dakota,' Caldwell said. 'It's a textbook case of lack of personal jurisdiction.' While Greenpeace International did sign onto a letter that included two of the statements the jury found defamatory, it was one of more than 500 signatories, he said. Greenpeace Fund similarly said there was no evidence linking it to the case. 'We shouldn't be here,' said Matt Kelly, an attorney representing the organization. Energy Transfer has argued that Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International conspired with Greenpeace USA on its anti-pipeline efforts. The jury found Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA liable for conspiracy, but not Greenpeace Fund. Gion took the motions under advisement. The parties also recently presented arguments on a separate set of motions asking Gion to reduce the jury's nearly $667 million award against Greenpeace. Greenpeace claims the award exceeds statutory caps on damages and that the verdict is riddled with inconsistencies. If the jury's decision is allowed to stand, defendants have the option to appeal the verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International have disclosed their intent to appeal. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
E&E News
28-05-2025
- Business
- E&E News
Tribe appeals ruling on Dakota Access pipeline
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is launching the latest round of its legal fight to shut down the Dakota Access pipeline for continuing to operate without a valid easement. On Tuesday, the tribe told a federal judge it was appealing his ruling that their lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was premature. The agency has been in the process of conducting a supplemental environmental review of the oil conduit, which passes beneath Lake Oahe in the Dakotas, after a federal appeals court tossed out the existing National Environmental Policy Act analysis as inadequate. Advertisement In the meantime, the Army Corps has allowed the pipeline to continue to carry oil beneath the lake, which is located close to the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, provided pipeline operator Energy Transfer complies with set safety requirements.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Mark Bennett: A voice that spoke up in 2020 reflects on a summer of dissent
A lone protester stood quietly holding a small sign on a Washington, D.C., street several years ago. Curious, Dominique Morefield took a closer look to read the sign. That moment proved pivotal for her. The sign's wording protested the Dakota Access pipeline, a project that would move oil from a North Dakota oil field to an Illinois refinery. Native American groups opposed the project as a threat to native lands and the waters of the Missouri River. MET 060920 YOUNG MOREFIELD 01 FILE Dominique Morefield talks about the alternatives to arrests during a demonstration by the Reform Movement of Terre Haute in front of the Vigo County Annex on June 9, 2020. At the time, Morefield wasn't aware of that situation. Later that day, she began reading about it. Soon, she saw reports about the pipeline on TV news. 'I saw how one person, silently standing with a piece of paper' could stir interest, Morefield recalled this week. 'Just something that simple stuck in my brain, and seeing it transpire on the national news was very inspiring, as well.' Morefield, a Terre Haute native, was working as a nanny in Washington that year before returning to her hometown. She witnessed numerous marches and rallies there. 'Being in the nation's capital, I saw protests and demonstrations almost daily,' she said. 'Seeing it in D.C. made such a difference.' A few years later, Morefield's voice was among those leading the 'Walk for CommUNITY' through downtown Terre Haute on a hot day — June 6, 2020. She also became an organizer of the Reform Movement of Terre Haute. Terre Haute's June 2020 demonstration was one of many marches around the country in response to the death of a black Minnesota man, George Floyd, at the hands of a white Minneapolis police officer, as well as similar incidents of racial injustice and excessive police tactics. Floyd was pinned to ground while handcuffed as the officer pressed a knee on the back of Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes, despite the man's pleas for help. Video of Floyd's death on May 25, 2020 was seen worldwide. The officer, Derek Chauvin, was convicted of murder and is serving a 22 1/2-year sentence in prison, and later pleaded guilty to violating Floyd's civil rights and is serving a 21-year federal sentence for that, according to the St. Cloud Times. MET 053020 FLOYD WABASH MARCH FILE Protesters march down Wabash Avenue on Saturday, May 30, 2020, to protest the death of George Floyd. Hundreds gathered near the Vigo County Courthouse and marched several times throughout the area. The vast majority of the summer of 2020's thousands of protests nationwide and beyond occurred peacefully, as was the case in Terre Haute. Then-Terre Haute Police Chief Shawn Keen said the walk was 'peaceful, organized, and I thought everybody looked out for one another in the heat.' The marchers were black and white, kids and adults. Many carried signs ranging from 'Black Lives Matter' to a Martin Luther King Jr. quotation: 'Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.' Among those speaking to the crowd from the steps of City Hall were rally organizer Erick Beverly, College Football Hall of Famer and Terre Haute native Anthony Thompson and Vigo County Prosecutor Terry Modesitt. Morefield spoke, too. She shared a poem, and also urged the crowd to continue the momentum behind the rally. The five-year anniversary of Floyd's death and the quest for racial justice is a topic of reflection around the country. Morefield is now 29 and recently moved to Indianapolis, where she works as program events director and partnership manager for Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Central Indiana. Speaking as an individual, and not in her role with Big Brothers and Big Sisters, Morefield sees the June 2020 march in Terre Haute as a moment when concerned citizens felt free to express themselves. The large turnout played a part in that. 'I think being able to see the support of other community members made it easier for people to feel like they can speak up,' Morefield said by phone from Indianapolis. The march also revealed that Morefield had found her niche for public speaking, community organizing and social justice advocacy. 'It definitely did. I have always known I care for marginalized communities, but I didn't know the depth or power of my voice,' she said. 'It really propelled my career and fueled my passion to serve marginalized communities.' Dominique Morefield in 2022 In this 2022 photo, Dominique Morefield stands near the intersection of Third Street and Wabash Avenue on Wednesday where Black Lives Matter marches were held in the summer of 2020. She grew up attending Terre Haute schools — Crawford and Dixie Bee elementaries, Sarah Scott Middle School and Terre Haute South High School, and then studied English and communications at Ball State and Indiana State universities. Morefield didn't complete her degree, but her campus activities and education were followed by jobs serving young people. Much national discussion on the five-year anniversary of Floyd's death centers on whether progress has been thwarted by the Trump administration's push to dismantle programs and entities committed to diversity, equity and inclusion or DEI. Morefield believes whatever progress that was made was real, and that it can't be erased by the ongoing anti-DEI presidential executive orders. 'The progress has been made where it's been made, and I don't think the president signing as many executive orders as he can is going to stop that progress,' she said. Standing up for causes has been a constant for Morefield. She remembers distributing her first petition as a fourth-grader. At age 12, she made national headlines after chasing a man — who robbed her lemonade stand of its $17.50 in profits — into a building, where police eventually arrested him. 'Just having a strong sense of right and wrong has definitely guided me in my life,' Morefield said. 'There's probably nothing that upsets me more than injustice.'
