Latest news with #DeepaPadmanabha
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Greenpeace seeks to reduce jury's award of $667M in Dakota Access Pipeline trial
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) Greenpeace wants a North Dakota judge to reduce the nearly $667 million in damages it was ordered to pay the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline in March, arguing that the award is excessive and unreasonable. A Morton County jury handed down the sum following a more than three-week trial earlier this year. Jurors found the environmental group at fault for damages related to protests against the pipeline in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017, and for publishing defamatory statements that harmed Energy Transfer's business. Greenpeace was one of many activist groups that backed the movement, which drew thousands to rural south-central North Dakota to protest in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Greenpeace denies Energy Transfer's allegations and says the company only brought the lawsuit to chill environmental activism. The defendants have yet to appeal. In the meantime, attorneys for Greenpeace have asked Southwest Judicial District Judge James Gion to slash the nearly $667 million award, claiming it exceeds statutory caps on damages and that the verdict is riddled with inconsistencies. Jury finds Greenpeace at fault for protest damages, awards pipeline developer more than $660 million 'This is the poster child of where the court needs to step in,' Steven Caplow, an attorney representing Greenpeace, said in a Thursday morning remote hearing. Energy Transfer says Gion should let the jury's award stand. Trey Cox, an attorney representing the pipeline developer, called the damages 'consistent with the evidence produced at trial and the law of the state of North Dakota.' In North Dakota, a punitive damage award cannot exceed two times the compensatory damage award, or the amount granted to make up for financial losses a party suffered. Greenpeace and Energy Transfer disagree as to whether the verdict meets this requirement. Caplow argued that the punitive damages must be reduced by roughly $43 million to be consistent with state law, while Cox said the damages don't exceed the cap and ought to be left in place. Greenpeace also claims the award includes costs that should actually be attributed to Energy Transfer or other third parties. Greenpeace maintains it only had six employees visit the protest camps, and that its presence was small compared to the many other activist groups that supported the movement. Caplow argued that Energy Transfer without sufficient evidence is holding Greenpeace responsible for all damages the company incurred in connection to the protests. He said the award unfairly compensates Energy Transfer for expenses it sustained before any Greenpeace employees set foot in North Dakota, for example. Greenpeace also alleges the jury form — which the jurors had to fill out to issue their verdict — was flawed in a way that inflated the damages attributed to the environmental group. Before the jurors deliberated, Gion directed them to consider whether each damage Energy Transfer claimed was directly caused by Greenpeace, or whether and to what extent they resulted from the actions of another group. Despite this being part of the instructions, there wasn't space on the form for the jury to conduct this analysis, Caplow said. That meant jurors were deprived of an opportunity to voice whether they believe Energy Transfer or other groups shared responsibility for any of the $667 million award, Caplow argued. Cox said Greenpeace could have proposed changes to the form to address this issue, but didn't. Greenpeace also asked Gion to remove hundreds of millions of dollars of defamation-related damages, claiming the award is not supported by the evidence presented at trial. The jury awarded Energy Transfer damages for statements Greenpeace published about the pipeline between November 2016 and June 2018. The environmental group maintains that none of the statements are defamatory, but also says that even if they were, they cannot be held solely responsible for defamation. Greenpeace says the statements originated with other sources — including the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe — and were circulated by hundreds of other outlets well before it published anything about the pipeline. Additionally, Greenpeace says a significant portion of the $667 million includes compensation for damages Energy Transfer did not formally request relief for, including some Greenpeace says the company referenced during trial but didn't claim in its written complaint. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Energy Transfer disputes the notion that Gion has discretion to reduce the jury's award. Energy Transfer's lawsuit is against three Greenpeace entities — Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund. Greenpeace USA was found at fault for most of the claims brought by Energy Transfer. The jury did not find Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund responsible for on-the-ground harms committed by protesters, though it did find those entities responsible for defamation and interfering with Energy Transfer's business. Additionally, the jury found Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International liable for conspiracy. Matt Kelly, an attorney representing Greenpeace Fund, said during Thursday's hearing that the award against the organization should be tossed out. The jury ordered Greenpeace Fund to pay roughly $130 million despite the fact that it did not find the organization at fault for most of the major claims in the case, Kelly said. 'We were forced to litigate for seven years on claims where there was no basis for any liability against Greenpeace Fund,' Kelly said during the hearing. 'The idea that we should be forced to bear those costs, at this point, is ridiculous.' Greenpeace International in court filings argued similarly that the nearly $132 million in damages it was ordered to pay should be dropped. Energy Transfer says that the awards are valid because the jury found both of the organizations at fault for interfering with the company's business. Gion took the motion under advisement. Greenpeace in separate motions has asked Gion to fully reverse the jury's verdict. The parties are scheduled to reconvene for another hearing on May 27. Greenpeace USA has announced its intent to appeal the verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court. 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
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Greenpeace seeks to reduce jury's award of $667M in Dakota Access Pipeline trial
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) Greenpeace wants a North Dakota judge to reduce the nearly $667 million in damages it was ordered to pay the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline in March, arguing that the award is excessive and unreasonable. A Morton County jury handed down the sum following a more than three-week trial earlier this year. Jurors found the environmental group at fault for damages related to protests against the pipeline in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017, and for publishing defamatory statements that harmed Energy Transfer's business. Greenpeace was one of many activist groups that backed the movement, which drew thousands to rural south-central North Dakota to protest in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Greenpeace denies Energy Transfer's allegations and says the company only brought the lawsuit to chill environmental activism. The defendants have yet to appeal. In the meantime, attorneys for Greenpeace have asked Southwest Judicial District Judge James Gion to slash the nearly $667 million award, claiming it exceeds statutory caps on damages and that the verdict is riddled with inconsistencies. 'This is the poster child of where the court needs to step in,' Steven Caplow, an attorney representing Greenpeace, said in a Thursday morning remote hearing. Jury finds Greenpeace at fault for protest damages, awards pipeline developer more than $660 million Energy Transfer says Gion should let the jury's award stand. Trey Cox, an attorney representing the pipeline developer, called the damages 'consistent with the evidence produced at trial and the law of the state of North Dakota.' In North Dakota, a punitive damage award cannot exceed two times the compensatory damage award, or the amount granted to make up for financial losses a party suffered. Greenpeace and Energy Transfer disagree as to whether the verdict meets this requirement. Caplow argued that the punitive damages must be reduced by roughly $43 million to be consistent with state law, while Cox said the damages don't exceed the cap and ought to be left in place. Greenpeace also claims the award includes costs that should actually be attributed to Energy Transfer or other third parties. Greenpeace maintains it only had six employees visit the protest camps, and that its presence was small compared to the many other activist groups that supported the movement. Caplow argued that Energy Transfer without sufficient evidence is holding Greenpeace responsible for all damages the company incurred in connection to the protests. He said the award unfairly compensates Energy Transfer for expenses it sustained before any Greenpeace employees set foot in North Dakota, for example. Greenpeace also alleges the jury form — which the jurors had to fill out to issue their verdict — was flawed in a way that inflated the damages attributed to the environmental group. Before the jurors deliberated, Gion directed them to consider whether each damage Energy Transfer claimed was directly caused by Greenpeace, or whether and to what extent they resulted from the actions of another group. Despite this being part of the instructions, there wasn't space on the form for the jury to conduct this analysis, Caplow said. More Dakota Access Pipeline coverage That meant jurors were deprived of an opportunity to voice whether they believe Energy Transfer or other groups shared responsibility for any of the $667 million award, Caplow argued. Cox said Greenpeace could have proposed changes to the form to address this issue, but didn't. Greenpeace also asked Gion to remove hundreds of millions of dollars of defamation-related damages, claiming the award is not supported by the evidence presented at trial. The jury awarded Energy Transfer damages for statements Greenpeace published about the pipeline between November 2016 and June 2018. The environmental group maintains that none of the statements are defamatory, but also says that even if they were, they cannot be held solely responsible for defamation. Greenpeace says the statements originated with other sources — including the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe — and were circulated by hundreds of other outlets well before it published anything about the pipeline. Additionally, Greenpeace says a significant portion of the $667 million includes compensation for damages Energy Transfer did not formally request relief for, including some Greenpeace says the company referenced during trial but didn't claim in its written complaint. Energy Transfer disputes the notion that Gion has discretion to reduce the jury's award. Energy Transfer's lawsuit is against three Greenpeace entities — Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund. Greenpeace USA was found at fault for most of the claims brought by Energy Transfer. The jury did not find Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund responsible for on-the-ground harms committed by protesters, though it did find those entities responsible for defamation and interfering with Energy Transfer's business. Additionally, the jury found Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International liable for conspiracy. Matt Kelly, an attorney representing Greenpeace Fund, said during Thursday's hearing that the award against the organization should be tossed out. The jury ordered Greenpeace Fund to pay roughly $130 million despite the fact that it did not find the organization at fault for most of the major claims in the case, Kelly said. 'We were forced to litigate for seven years on claims where there was no basis for any liability against Greenpeace Fund,' Kelly said during the hearing. 'The idea that we should be forced to bear those costs, at this point, is ridiculous.' Greenpeace International in court filings argued similarly that the nearly $132 million in damages it was ordered to pay should be dropped. Energy Transfer says that the awards are valid because the jury found both of the organizations at fault for interfering with the company's business. Gion took the motion under advisement. Greenpeace in separate motions has asked Gion to fully reverse the jury's verdict. The parties are scheduled to reconvene for another hearing on May 27. Greenpeace USA has announced its intent to appeal the verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Greenpeace ruling mean for future protests?
Last week, a jury in North Dakota found an environmentalist organization guilty of defamation in a yearslong battle with one of the largest pipeline companies in the United States. After a two-day deliberation, the jury awarded $667 million in damages to Texas-based pipeline company Energy Transfer and Dakota Access LLC after it sued Greenpeace for its role in the protests that occurred nearly a decade ago over the Dakota Access Pipeline. The jury in Mandan, North Dakota, was given a laundry list of questions regarding Greenpeace's involvement in the protest — initially led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe — including if the group was liable for defamation, trespassing, conspiracy, etc. The Native American tribe has long been outspoken against the pipeline, arguing that it would be a threat to their water supply and sacred lands. In the lawsuit, Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of harming the company's reputation, encouraging vandalism to its equipment and putting its employees in harm's way. 'Its organizers trained protesters and even brought lockboxes they used to chain themselves to construction equipment. Protesters lobbed human feces and burning logs at security officers and vandalized construction equipment,' per The Wall Street Journal. However, since the verdict, Greenpeace has cried innocence, saying its involvement in the protests was misrepresented, and pledged to appeal the decision. 'What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer's blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. And while they also tried to distort the truth about Greenpeace's role in the protests, we instead reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to non-violence in every action we take,' Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace USA, told The Washington Post. '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.' Legal representation for Energy Transfer also commented on the issue of First Amendment rights. Trey Cox, lead lawyer for the defendants, argued that the actions made by Greenpeace were not lawful. 'Peaceful protest is an inherent American right,' he said. 'However, violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable,' per The New York Times. Vicki Granado, a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer, added that 'this win is really for the people of Mandan and 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.' The decision was less surprising in part because Greenpeace had initially and unsuccessfully tried to move the case due to fears of biased jurors living and being employed in the oil production region. The protests occurred between 2016 and 2017, involving monthlong encampments, and at times, protesters turned violent, creating a harsh environment for the people who lived in the area. Since the decision, many news outlets have speculated on how it will influence future actions by protesters and past national movements, such as the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 and the Anti-Israel college protests following the Oct. 7, 2023, attack, viewing them as comparable offenses in the name of activism. James B. Meigs, Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute, said one similarity between these protests is that they all had 'hybrid protests,' in which the majority of peaceful demonstrators are joined by a lesser amount of conditioned agitators who turn the events toward violence. 'Energy Transfer's suit against Greenpeace represents the first major success in exposing and penalizing the putatively legitimate nonprofits that funnel money and material support to the lawbreakers embedding themselves in these hybrid protests,' he wrote in City Journal. 'If the enormous verdict survives the inevitable appeals, it will be a major shot across the bows of progressive organizations that quietly foment political mayhem while maintaining plausible deniability.' The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board shared a similar sentiment, writing that Greenpeace got what it deserved: 'If the verdict deters other self-righteous outfits from aiding violent protests, including those against Israel, so much the better,' they wrote. 'The left-wing group says the lawsuit is retribution for exercising its First Amendment speech and protest rights. But there's no First Amendment right to defame or destroy.' Environmentalists interpreted the verdict differently. Beyond Fossil Fuels, a coalition of civil society organizations posted on social media that ordering GreenPeace to pay millions in damages was 'unacceptable and sets a dangerous precedent. #Fossilfuel corporations cannot and will not sue activists into submission.' Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told The Washington Post that though the verdict was unlikely to deter political activists, it could prevent them from actively protesting against fossil fuel projects while they're under construction. 'It sends a chilling message to physical climate protests — anything that actually disrupts fossil fuel production,' Gerrard said.
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
A court ordered Greenpeace to pay a pipeline company $660M. What happens next?
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.
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What the Greenpeace Fine Means For the Future of Activism
France's Greenpeace activists perform an action to support Greenpeace USA, next to Statue of Liberty at Pont de Grenelle in Paris on Feb. 20, 2025. Energy Transfer, the Big Oil company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, sued Greenpeace USA for $300 million. Credit - Thibaud MORITZ—Getty Images The environmental organization Greenpeace was ordered to pay more than $660 million dollars to the Texas-based pipeline company Energy Transfer this week over its role in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests nearly a decade ago. The outcome was a blow to the environmental advocacy group, which has previously said that a lawsuit of this size could bankrupt its U.S. operations. Energy Transfer, the operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline, accused Greenpeace USA and International of playing a central role in organizing the resistance to the pipeline at Standing Rock in 2016 and 2017. The protests drew national attention as activists set up camp on land owned by Energy Transfer in an attempt to delay the project's construction. Law enforcement responded by deploying water cannons, tear gas, and other weapons on unarmed protesters—injuring hundreds. Greenpeace denied the company's claims, and has said the case is 'one of the largest Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) cases ever filed.' 'Greenpeace played an extremely limited role at Standing Rock, and is proud of showing up in solidarity with Standing Rock activists,' Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor for Greenpeace, said in a statement in February. The protests brought together thousands of activists from around the country who opposed the development of part of the Dakota Access Pipeline on the Standing Rock reservation. 'At no time did Greenpeace engage in property destruction or violence. All claims to the contrary are a reckless disregard for the truth.' Experts say that the success of the so-called SLAPP lawsuit—and heavy penalty Greenpeace was dealt—stands to silence other activists who speak up against big companies. 'This verdict, especially given its scope, really changes the calculus for advocacy groups who are engaged in, not just environmental issues, but more generally, in advocacy,' says Jennifer Safstrom, director of the Stanton Foundation First Amendment Clinic at Vanderbilt Law School. 'They too could face liability for their advocacy efforts.' SLAPP lawsuits are a type of strategic civil litigation aimed at silencing speech by burying an organization or private citizen in legal fees. The term was coined by two professors in the '90s, Safstrom says, who notes that the practice was created in large part to target environmental activists—so much so that the professors used another term, 'eco-SLAPP,' to define the practice. "It's an abuse of the court system, not for a legitimate legal end, but to try to shut somebody up,' says Gabe Walters, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. The practice has grown in prominence in the last decade. EarthRights, a non-profit environmental law group, identified 152 cases by fossil fuel companies between 2012 and 2022 that used strategic lawsuits against critics. A report by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) documented 820 SLAPP suits in Europe as of August 2023, with 161 lawsuits filed in 2022, and 135 cases filed in 2021. (The European Union passed an anti-SLAPP directive in April 2024, which aims to provide safeguards against strategic lawsuits that target public participation.) Thirty-five states and Washington D.C. have anti-SLAPP laws in place, though what protections they provide may vary. Some states require that verdicts be reached on expedited timelines, while others have implemented 'fee shifting,' which allows a defendant to recover legal fees if they win their case. But in states that don't have protections in place, the impact of a SLAPP lawsuit can be devastating for organizations and individuals alike. 'The goal is not even necessarily to win in court,' says Walters. 'Just having to defend a lawsuit can be financially ruinous for a private person or for a nonprofit advocacy organization because the costs of litigation are so high.' Environmental groups have said they won't back down from their work. In a statement released after the verdict was announced, EarthRights, said that the decision would not silence environmental advocacy. 'EarthRights proudly joins Greenpeace USA in speaking up against brazen legal attacks and ensuring that the environmental movement only continues to grow stronger, despite the appalling result in North Dakota.' Rebecca Brown, president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law, said that 'no abusive company, lawsuit, or court decision' would hinder the climate fight. 'This misuse of the legal system stifles legitimate dissent and must be seen as a direct threat to environmental justice and democratic freedoms,' said Brown. 'Such tactics will not deter us, they only strengthen our commitment to resistance and solidarity and defense of the constitutionally-protected right to protest.' ClientEarth CEO Laura Clarke, said in a statement to TIME that the loss 'highlights the growing trend of big polluters using the legal system to intimidate and silence critics.' 'The message they seek to convey is a deeply chilling one: that no organization that challenges polluting industries is safe.' Greenpeace has said it plans to challenge the ruling. The group's international arm also filed a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer in 2024—one of the first tests of the European Union's newly-enacted anti-SLAPP Directive. 'Energy Transfer hasn't heard the last of us in this fight. We're just getting started with our anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer's attacks on free speech and peaceful protest,' Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International General Counsel, said in a statement. In the meantime, Walters warns that, without national anti-SLAPP protections in place, Wednesday's verdict will likely embolden powerful companies—and potentially silence activists and groups that are unable to afford a costly legal battle. 'The judgment in the Greenpeace case has two practical effects,' he says. 'One is that the sheer size of the judgment will chill speech. It will deter others from criticizing powerful interests. The other effect is that it may incentivize copycat lawsuits. A large judgment like this can be a powerful incentive to file further litigation and try to silence critics.' Write to Simmone Shah at
