Latest news with #StandingRockSioux
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
19-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
United Nations Indigenous forum considers moving outside US
Pauly DenetclawICT Delegates to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues – one of the largest annual gatherings at UN headquarters in New York City – may decide to move future meetings outside the United States because of the current political climate. Fears about treatment of international visitors and difficulty or delays in gaining visas to travel into the U.S. are already reducing attendance at this year's meeting, which is set to start Monday and run through May 2. Now members are considering moving the event altogether. 'We're concerned about the ability of Indigenous people from around the world to actually make it in the country and not be harassed,' Geoffrey Roth, Standing Rock Sioux, one of 16 members of the Permanent Forum, told ICT Friday. 'Considering the safety of Indigenous peoples and their ability to actually make it to meetings and participate in a meaningful way,' he said, 'I think it's time to move, and that's my personal opinion.' Roth has heard from delegates and representatives that it's not a safe time to travel to the United States, and they're scared to do it. On top of that, visas are being denied or delayed, impacting those who can participate — especially those from countries in Africa or from Russia. The chair of the forum, Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, an Indigenous Mbororo woman from Chad, issued a letter on April 15 calling on all member states to issue visas in a timely manner and give unimpeded access for Indigenous participants. Ibrahim cited Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that guarantees the right for every citizen to take part in public affairs, as well as Articles 2 and 26, which affirms nondiscrimination of using such rights. 'A different level of concern' Each spring for more than 20 years, the floor of the United Nations General Assembly Hall has become a homecoming for Indigenous leaders, activists, delegates and representatives for the opening ceremony to the Permanent Forum. Indigenous people who are separated by oceans, continents, rivers and colonial borders become friends and colleagues — working together to strengthen Indigenous rights locally and globally. 'It's extremely important we have all of these voices come together, and we speak with as unified a voice as possible in the global perspective,' Roth told ICT. Since 2002, the Permanent Forum, a high-level advisory body to the UN that is known as PFII, has held an annual meeting at the United Nations headquarters in New York City. It has grown to become the second-largest event held at 760 United Nations Plaza. The annual meeting has become known as a global platform for Indigenous people to push for dialogue, cooperation and concrete action on issues that impact their communities. This year, however, forum members have already discussed the possibility of moving the annual meeting out of the United States — permanently. 'I think we're seeing a whole different level of concern about traveling here and being safe while in New York and while at this meeting,' Roth said. One member of the forum has had their travel visa delayed for a second year in a row. This is unusual, considering that members are nominated by either a government or chair of the Economic and Social Council, one of the main organs that make up the UN. It's possible the member may not be able to attend this year's forum at all, Roth said. Unable to attend There is a history of Indigenous people from countries that are adversaries of the United States having their visas denied or delayed. However, the issue has become more widespread and prevalent. Four months into President Donald Trump's new administration, international arrivals have plummeted. Some are angered by Trump's tariffs and rhetoric. Others are alarmed by reports of tourists being arrested at the border, denied entry into the country, or detained for questioning for several hours to days. Roth said folks haven't explicitly mentioned Trump's policy but the proposal to relocate the forum is likely to be presented. 'I anticipate a recommendation to move it,' Roth said. 'But I'm not sure if that's going to happen or not. We'll see through the deliberations. It will also be important for us to hear from Indigenous people that did make it. But I am receiving a lot of messages that individuals just aren't going to be making it this year.' Roth is worried that participation is going to plummet this year, which will impact the success and work of the forum. The purpose of the annual meeting is to gather interventions, which are essentially calls to action, that will be used in a report to the United Nations. If the 16 members agree to recommend moving the meeting, it would be included in the annual report to the UN and implemented. Ultimately, it would take several years because of how far ahead the UN events are planned. The Permanent Forum does have the authority to change venues, per the Economic and Social Council Resolution 2000. It states that the 16-member board 'decides that the Permanent Forum shall hold an annual session of ten working days at the United Nations Office at Geneva or at United Nations Headquarters or at such other place as the Permanent Forum may decide in accordance with existing financial rules and regulations of the United Nations.' The annual reports provide expert advice and recommendations to the UN system. The forum members, based on interventions, advocate globally for Indigenous rights and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, known as UNDRIP. 'We're not going to have as many Indigenous people here that we typically would, and we're not going to have that perspective from those people as well,' he said. Voices unheard Indigenous communities in the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, are experiencing severe human rights violations because of mining development. Congolese Indigenous people gave testimony to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues that resulted in a call to action. Ibrahim, the forum chair, called on the Congo government to intervene and for the UN to investigate human rights violations. The forum wouldn't have known this was happening if Congolese Indigenous people weren't able to advocate for their communities. Indigenous people from Russia have already told Roth that there will be a much smaller group attending this year. This means hunting, fishing and mining issues from those communities won't reach the international stage that the forum offers. This story contains material from The Associated Press. Our stories are worth telling. Our stories are worth sharing. Our stories are worth your support. Contribute $5 or $10 today to help ICT carry out its critical mission. Sign up for ICT's free newsletter.
The Guardian
28-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
I was an independent observer in the Greenpeace trial. What I saw was shocking
The stunning $667m verdict against Greenpeace last week is a direct attack on the climate movement, Indigenous peoples and the first amendment. The North Dakota case is so deeply flawed – at its core, the trial was really about crushing dissent – that I believe there is a good chance it will be reversed on appeal and ultimately backfire against the Energy Transfer pipeline company. I was part of an independent monitoring team of nine attorneys and four prominent human rights advocates who sat through every minute of the three-week trial, in a nondescript courthouse in rural North Dakota. Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace for alleged damages it claimed derived from the historic Indigenous-led Standing Rock protests in 2016 against the Dakota Access pipeline. Our presence in court was essential given that the company was able to shroud the trial in secrecy. There was no court reporter and there still is no public transcript or recording of the proceedings. What we observed was shocking. Greenpeace lost, not because it did something wrong, but because it was denied a fair trial. The legendary US human rights attorney Marty Garbus, a member of our team who has practiced law for more than six decades and who represented Nelson Mandela and Václav Havel, said it was the most unfair trial he had ever witnessed. This is precisely why many of us on the monitoring team believe there is a good chance Greenpeace will not pay the first dollar of the judgment and might actually recoup significant damages from Energy Transfer in a separate case in Europe. That case, currently being heard in Dutch courts, would entitle Greenpeace to compensation based on a finding that the North Dakota case is an illegitimate attempt to squelch free speech. Many legal observers and first amendment scholars regard the North Dakota case as a Slapp harassment lawsuit. Slapps – strategic lawsuits against public participation – are designed not to resolve legitimate legal claims but to use courts to intimidate, silence and even bankrupt adversaries. By their very nature, they violate the constitution because they trespass on the first amendment right to speech. Allowing these cases to proceed almost always saddles the target with backbreaking legal expenses that can silence even the most resilient leaders and organizations. This clearly was Energy Transfer's plan, but the case was never just about Greenpeace. It was about using the organization as a proxy to attack the Standing Rock Sioux's autonomy, leadership and sovereignty, as well as the broader climate justice movement, which is trying mightily to transition our country to a clean energy economy. The protests and the climate movement's goals are a direct threat to Energy Transfer's business model. That might explain why Kelcy Warren, the founder and CEO of Energy Transfer, said the main purpose of the lawsuit against Greenpeace was to 'send a message' rather than to collect money. A major Trump supporter and the mastermind of the lawsuit, Warren once said activists 'should be removed from the gene pool'. After he made a large contribution to Donald Trump's inaugural committee in 2017, the Trump administration quickly approved a key easement for the North Dakota pipeline that had been denied by Barack Obama. The Greenpeace case had all the telltale signs of an illegitimate Slapp – so much so that it was originally thrown out of federal court in 2019. In that case, Energy Transfer openly claimed Greenpeace had engaged in a racketeering conspiracy and 'terrorism' by speaking out against the pipeline and by conducting training in non-violent direct action at the site. The company quickly refiled the case in the more friendly confines of state court. Literally every judge in the judicial district where it was filed recused themselves because of conflicts of interest. Here are some of the more fundamental problems we observed that clearly violated the fair trial rights of Greenpeace: The jury – the most sacred due process protection available to a defendant – was patently biased in favor of the company. Seven of the 11 people seated had ties to the fossil fuel industry. Some had admitted they could not be fair, but the judge seated them anyway. There was no Native American or person of color on the jury even though issues of Indigenous rights were central to the trial. Morton county, where the trial was held and where many of the protests took place, voted 75% for Trump in the last election and has extensive ties to the fossil fuel industry. In a pre-trial survey, 97% of residents in the county said they could not be fair to Greenpeace. Yet the judge refused repeated requests by Greenpeace to move the case. Energy Transfer ran a major television and online advertising campaign in the county lauding itself in the weeks leading up to the trial. A newspaper called Central ND News, with articles critical of the protests, was also sent to county residents; Greenpeace believed Energy Transfer might have been responsible for it. But the court refused to allow Greenpeace to use court discovery procedures to determine how this unethical campaign to taint the jury pool happened. Adding to the absurdity, Greenpeace was blamed for the entire protest movement even though it played only a minimal role. The protests were led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, on whose ancestral land the Dakota Access pipeline was being built. In fact, only six of the 100,000 people who came to the protests were from Greenpeace – yet Energy Transfer was able to convince the jury to hold the organization responsible for every dollar of supposed damages that occurred over seven months of protests. Secrecy pervaded the proceedings. The court repeatedly refused to open a live stream to the public or to create and release transcripts. A request by media organizations (including the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times) to access the live stream was denied. Thousands of key documents were sealed and thus hidden from public scrutiny. The judge, James Gion, made evidentiary decisions that gutted Greenpeace's ability to mount a defense. For example, a major expert report showed that the pipeline had leaked roughly 1m gallons of drilling fluids into drinking water sources used by millions of people. Greenpeace lawyers needed the document to debunk the argument that the pipeline was safe, but the judge refused to let the organization use it. The 35-page verdict form was confusing and the results seemed to prove the jury was in fact confused. It appears the exorbitant damages number was calculated by pulling numbers out of thin air – including millions for public relations expenses, private security costs, which were being paid anyway, and refinancing costs due to various banks withdrawing from the project once they learned about the protests. (Lobbying banks is also constitutionally protected advocacy.) The inability of Judge Gion to manage the case such that Greenpeace's fair trial rights were respected was evident. It was almost excruciating to watch. It felt more like a choreographed show than an adversarial proceeding. Greenpeace was consistently – and, in our opinion, falsely – portrayed by the Energy Transfer lawyer Trey Cox as a criminal enterprise that exploited Indigenous peoples for its own gain. He used words such as 'mafia' and 'coded language' to describe the group's operations. (Cox works for the same law firm, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, that Chevron used to orchestrate my 993-day detention after I helped Amazon communities win the $10bn Ecuador pollution case.) The verdict represents more than a financial blow against Greenpeace. It has huge and very troubling implications for free speech across the nation. The result threatens the rights of religious groups and political organizations. It implicates the rights of churches and charities. If the theory of the case stands, pretty much anyone in the United States can face ruin for exercising their constitutional right to speak on an issue of public importance – including adherents of conservative causes. It's a corporate playbook that started with Chevron's legal attacks on me and the Amazon communities in 2009. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher markets the playbook to its corporate clients. The case also highlights the Trump administration's broader attack on progressive activism. From proposed legislation that would allow the treasury department to unilaterally revoke the non-profit status of organizations deemed 'terrorism-supporting' to the FBI's reported plans to criminally prosecute climate groups, the goal is clear: suppress dissent. Greenpeace is in the crosshairs because its brand is global and its success in fighting polluters over the last several decades is outstanding. This is why it is critical for Greenpeace and its allies to lean into the verdict and issue a call to action to the entire environmental movement and broader civil society organizations. Greenpeace is without question the world's largest environmental activist group, with chapters in 25 countries. It gave birth to the non-Indigenous part of the modern environmental movement in the early 1970s and captured the imagination of the world by engaging in spectacular and creative actions to save whales in the north Pacific and to stop nuclear testing. Greenpeace needs to be protected in this critical moment. There is more than a glimmer of hope. A hearing is scheduled for July in Amsterdam in the Greenpeace lawsuit against Energy Transfer. If Greenpeace prevails on appeal in North Dakota and wins in Europe, it might be Energy Transfer paying substantial sums to Greenpeace rather than the other way around. There are realistic scenarios where Greenpeace emerges from this experience stronger than ever. The key is to keep grinding and calling out this abuse loudly and publicly. The world will respond. Steven Donziger is a human rights and environmental lawyer. He is also a Guardian US columnist
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Jury deliberates US pipeline case with free speech implications
A jury in North Dakota began deliberating Monday in a trial that has broad free speech implications, over a US oil pipeline operator's lawsuit seeking millions of dollars from Greenpeace for allegedly orchestrating a campaign of violence and defamation. At the heart of the case is the Dakota Access Pipeline, where nearly a decade ago the Standing Rock Sioux tribe led one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in US history. Hundreds were arrested and injured, prompting concerns from the United Nations over violations of Indigenous sovereignty. The pipeline, which transports fracked crude oil to refineries and global markets, has been operational since 2017. But its operator, Energy Transfer, has continued pursuing legal action against Greenpeace -- first in a federal lawsuit seeking $300 million, which was dismissed, and then in the three-week trial in a state court in Mandan, North Dakota. Critics call the case a clear example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), designed to silence dissent and drain financial resources. Notably, North Dakota is among the minority of US states without anti-SLAPP protections. In February, Greenpeace became the first group to test the European Union's anti-SLAPP directive by suing Energy Transfer in the Netherlands. The group is seeking damages with interest and demanding that Energy Transfer publish the court's findings on its website. More than 400 organizations, along with public figures such as singer Billie Eilish and actors Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon have signed an open letter in support of Greenpeace, as have hundreds of thousands of individuals globally. gh/bfm
