Latest news with #SushmaRaman
New York Times
31-03-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
A Quarter-Billion Dollars for Defamation: Inside Greenpeace's Huge Loss
When the environmental group Greenpeace lost a nearly $670 million verdict this month over its role in oil pipeline protests, a quarter-billion dollars of the damages were awarded not for the actual demonstrations, but for defaming the pipeline's owner. The costly verdict has raised alarm among activist organizations as well as some First Amendment experts, who said the lawsuit and damage awards could deter free speech far beyond the environmental movement. The verdict 'will send a chill down the spine of any nonprofit who wants to get involved in any political protest,' said David D. Cole, a professor at Georgetown Law and former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. 'If you're the Sierra Club, or the N.A.A.C.P., or the N.R.A., or an anti-abortion group, you're going to be very worried.' The lawsuit, filed by Energy Transfer in 2019, accused Greenpeace of masterminding an 'unlawful and violent scheme' to harm the company's finances, employees and infrastructure and to block the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace countered that it had promoted peaceful protest and had played only a minor role in the demonstrations, which were led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe over concerns about its ancestral land and water supply. A key part of Energy Transfer's case relied on defamation claims. For example, the jury found that Greenpeace defamed the company by saying it had 'damaged at least 380 sacred and cultural sites' during pipeline work, the first of nine statements found defamatory. Greenpeace called Energy Transfer's lawsuit an attempt to muzzle the company's critics. 'This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations,' said Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace USA. 'We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment.' Greenpeace has said it will appeal to the Supreme Court in North Dakota, the state where the trial was held. Free-speech issues are widely expected to figure prominently in that filing. But Greenpeace was not the only party invoking the First Amendment. Upon leaving the courtroom, the lead lawyer for Energy Transfer, Trey Cox of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, called the verdict 'a powerful affirmation' of the First Amendment. 'Peaceful protest is an inherent American right,' he said. 'However, violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable.' Vicki Granado, a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer, described the verdict as 'a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law.' The clashing comments shine a light on a central tension in the debate: Where do you draw the line between peaceful protest and unlawful activity? 'If people are engaged in non-expressive conduct, like vandalism, like impeding roadways such that cars and passers-by can't use those roadways, the First Amendment is not going to protect that,' said JT Morris, a senior supervising attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonprofit that defends free speech across the ideological spectrum. 'But peaceful protest, criticism of companies on matters of public concern, those are all protected.' The verdict landed in the midst of a larger debate over the limits of free speech. President Trump has accused news outlets of defaming him, and he has been found liable for defamation himself. His administration has targeted law firms he perceives as enemies, as well as international students deemed too critical of Israel or of U.S. foreign policy. Conservatives have accused social media platforms of suppressing free speech and have vowed to stop what they call online censorship. 'There's nothing in this particular political climate that's shocking anymore,' said Jack Weinberg, who in the 1960s was a prominent free-speech activist and later worked for Greenpeace. (He's also known for the phrase 'Don't trust anyone over 30,' although that's not exactly how he said it.) 'But it's wrong,' he said of the verdict, 'and it will have profound consequences.' There has long been a high bar for defamation lawsuits in the United States. The First Amendment protects free speech and the right to protest, and a landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision, New York Times v. Sullivan, strengthened those protections. To prevail in a defamation suit, a public figure must prove that the statement was false and was made with 'actual malice,' meaning knowledge that the statement was false, or reckless disregard for its veracity. Carl W. Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, said that ruling intentionally raised the bar to win a defamation suit. 'It's extreme,' he said. 'It's meant to be.' Eugene Volokh, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, pointed to the history of that famous case. It concerned a 1960 ad in The Times that described police actions against civil rights demonstrators in Alabama as 'an unprecedented wave of terror.' A police official sued the paper and won. But the Supreme Court overturned the verdict. The court ruled that protecting such speech was necessary, even if it contained errors, in order to ensure robust public debate. In a Greenpeace appeal, Mr. Volokh said, the evidence demonstrating whether Greenpeace's statements were true or false would be crucial in evaluating the verdict, as would the question of whether Greenpeace's statements were constitutionally protected expressions of opinion. Other issues that loom: What was permitted to be entered into evidence in the first place, and whether the instructions to the jury were sufficient. Then, he said, if the statements are found to be clearly false, is there enough evidence to show that Greenpeace engaged in 'reckless falsehood, acts of so-called actual malice?' Any award for defamation chills free speech, Mr. Volokh added, whether against Greenpeace or against the Infowars host Alex Jones, who was found liable for more than $1 billion over his false statements about the murder of children at the Sandy Hook school shooting. In the Greenpeace case, the nine statements found by the jury to be defamatory referred to Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access. One statement said that Dakota Access personnel had 'deliberately desecrated burial grounds.' Another said that protesters had been met with 'extreme violence, such as the use of water cannons, pepper spray, concussion grenades, Tasers, LRADs (Long Range Acoustic Devices) and dogs, from local and national law enforcement, and Energy Transfer partners and their private security.' Other statements were more general: 'For months, the Standing Rock Sioux have been resisting the construction of a pipeline through their tribal land and waters that would carry oil from North Dakota's fracking fields to Illinois.' The protests unfolded over months, from mid-2016 to early 2017, attracting tens of thousands of people from around the world, and were widely documented by news crews and on social media. Janet Alkire, chairwoman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, argued that Greenpeace's statements were true and not defamatory. 'Energy Transfer's false and self-serving narrative that Greenpeace manipulated Standing Rock into protesting DAPL is patronizing and disrespectful to our people,' she said in a statement, using an abbreviation for the Dakota Access Pipeline. She said that 'scenes of guard dogs menacing tribal members' were publicly available 'on the news and on the internet.' Videos of the incidents in question weren't shown at the trial. Everett Jack Jr. of the firm Davis, Wright Tremaine, the main lawyer for Greenpeace, declined to discuss why. The 1,172-mile pipeline, priced at $3.7 billion when announced, has been operating since 2017. It carries crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois. During the trial, some arguments hinged on whether the pipeline crossed Standing Rock's land, or how to define tribal land. The pipeline is just outside the borders of the reservation but crosses what the tribe calls unceded land that it had never agreed to give up. There was also debate about whether tribal burial grounds were harmed during construction. Experts working for the tribe found that was the case, but experts brought in by Energy Transfer did not. Even if a statement was false, Mr. Cole said, a defendant cannot be held liable if they had a basis for believing it. He also predicted that the penalty would likely be reduced on appeal if not overturned. Martin Garbus, a veteran First Amendment lawyer, led a delegation of lawyers to North Dakota to observe the trial, who have said that the jury was biased against the defendants and that the trial should have been moved to another county. He expressed concern that an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court could be used to overturn Times v. Sullivan. He noted that Justice Clarence Thomas has called for the Supreme Court to reconsider that case. But Mr. Cole, Mr. Tobias and other experts said they did not expect the court to reconsider Times v. Sullivan. Greenpeace has said previously that the size of the damages could force the organization to shut down its U.S. operations. The lawsuit named three Greenpeace entities, but it centered on the actions of Greenpeace Inc., based in Washington, which organizes campaigns and protests in the United States and was found liable for more than $400 million. A second organization, Greenpeace Fund, a fund-raising arm, was found liable for about $130 million. A third group, Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, was found liable for the same amount. That group said its only involvement was signing a letter, along with several hundred other signatories, calling on banks to halt loans for the pipeline. Earlier this year, Greenpeace International filed a countersuit in the Netherlands against Energy Transfer. That lawsuit was brought under a European Union directive designed to fight what are known as SLAPP suits, or strategic lawsuits against public participation — legal actions designed to stifle critics. (State law in North Dakota, where Energy Transfer brought its case against Greenpeace, doesn't have anti-SLAPP provisions.) The next hearing in the Netherlands case is in July.
The Independent
20-03-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Activists slam US court decision ordering Greenpeace to pay millions to oil company: ‘Dangerous precedent'
Climate activists have criticised a North Dakota jury's decision ordering Greenpeace to pay over $660m (£508m) in damages to an oil company, calling it a 'dangerous precedent' that threatens the future of environmental activism and the right to protest in the US. Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), accused Greenpeace of defamation, trespassing and conspiracy, and claimed the environmental group spread misinformation and orchestrated illegal activities during the 2016-2017 pipeline protests – one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in US history. After two days of deliberation, a jury on Wednesday held the environmental group guilty on almost all counts and ordered that Greenpeace USA pay nearly $404m (£311m) to the oil company. Greenpeace Fund Inc and Greenpeace International were ordered to pay roughly $131m (£100m) each. Energy Transfer framed the verdict as a victory against what it called 'lawless' activism. '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,' the company said. Its attorney, Trey Cox, argued the case proved Greenpeace had 'abused' the right to protest. Greenpeace denied the allegations, calling the lawsuit a blatant attempt to bankrupt environmental defenders and silence dissent. The group said the ruling was part of a broader corporate effort to erode free speech and stifle environmental movements. 'Big Oil bullies around the world will continue to try to silence free speech and peaceful protest, but the fight against Energy Transfer's meritless SLAPP lawsuit is not over,' the organisation said. Interim executive director Sushma Raman called the case 'an attack on fundamental rights' and a threat to any group that dared challenge powerful corporations. '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,' she said. Although Greenpeace vowed to appeal the judgement, the organisation had said last month it could be forced into bankruptcy because of the case, ending over 50 years of activism. Many activists saw the ruling as a strategic attempt to silence dissent, setting a dangerous precedent for protest rights in the US. Marty Garbus, a veteran trial attorney, called the proceedings 'one of the most unfair trials' he had witnessed in his six-decade career. 'The law that comes down in this case can affect any demonstration, religious or political. It's far bigger than the environmental movement,' he said. 'It's far bigger than the environmental movement.' Oscar Soria, co-CEO of The Common Initiative and a former Greenpeace leader, told The Independent the verdict was 'a dangerous precedent that threatens the fundamental right to peaceful protest in America'. 'This outrageous verdict is nothing short of corporate tyranny masquerading as justice,' he said. Harjeet Singh, climate activist and founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, called the ruling 'a major setback for climate and social justice movements fighting to protect the rights of people and our planet'. 'This ruling attempts to silence those who stand against the destructive power of fossil fuel corporations. However, this struggle will not end, and we will not be intimidated,' he told The Independent. 'The responsibility for environmental destruction and the escalating climate crisis lies squarely with fossil fuel companies, and we must continue to hold them accountable. They cannot litigate away their culpability.' The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which led the protests against DAPL, denounced the lawsuit as an attempt to rewrite history. 'Energy Transfer is frivolously alleging defamation and seeking money damages, designed to shut down all voices supporting Standing Rock,' tribe chairperson Janet Alkire said. The tribe has long argued that the pipeline crosses Sioux Nation treaty land and poses a threat to their water resources and community. Ms Alkire said the protests were called and organised by the tribe, with Greenpeace and other environmental groups acting as allies. 'The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not be silenced,' she said. Greenpeace's legal team also criticised the lawsuit for erasing Indigenous leadership in the movement. 'What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer's blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,' said Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor, Greenpeace USA. Kelcy Warren, Energy Transfer's billionaire founder and a major donor to Donald Trump, admitted in a video deposition that his company had offered financial incentives – including money, luxury ranch, and a new school – to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to end the protests, according to trial monitors who observed the proceedings. They said the tribe refused the offer, with Standing Rock leadership maintaining that their opposition to the pipeline was based on protecting their land and water. 'Offers such as this one are emblematic of the strategies often employed by extractive industries to secure compliance or mitigate opposition from affected communities,' the group wrote. Natali Segovia, executive director of the water protector Legal Collective, argued that the lawsuit was not about justice but about controlling the narrative. 'This case was a deliberate orchestration by a pipeline company not only to silence dissent, but to carefully shape a corporate narrative that demonises the environmental justice and Indigenous rights movements,' she said. With Greenpeace set to appeal the decision, legal experts said the case could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court and set a direction for future environmental and rights movements. 'At a time when the world needs people to stand up against an obvious erosion of rights in this country, we must recognise the verdict against Greenpeace is designed to instil fear and discourage people from exercising their constitutional right to protest,' Jeanne Mirer, president of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said. The ruling also raises concerns about the financial sustainability of rights organisations like Greenpeace. Experts say most organisations are unlikely to be able to bear massive legal costs. However, a petition by Greenpeace's French chapter asking people to show support against the oil company's 'gag order' had accumulated over 290,000 signatures by Thursday morning. Mads Christensen, executive director of Greenpeace International, said: 'We are witnessing a disastrous return to the reckless behaviour that fuelled the climate crisis, deepened environmental racism, and put fossil fuel profits over public health and a liveable planet.'
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Greenpeace ordered to pay $660 million over pipeline protests
In a win for the oil and gas pipeline company Energy Transfer, a nine-person North Dakota jury found the environmental group Greenpeace liable for more than $660 million in damages and defamation for the 2016 to 2017 Standing Rock protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. In their lawsuit, Dallas-based Energy Transfer claimed Greenpeace was responsible for defamation, disruption and property damage for the protests that captured national attention in 2016. Greenpeace claimed the lawsuit threatened its freedom of speech. In a statement, Energy Transfer said, "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." Greenpeace plans to appeal the verdict. "This is the end of a chapter, but not the end of our fight. Energy Transfer knows we don't have $660 million. They want our silence, not our money." Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace Inc., told CBS News. Greenpeace accused Energy Transfer of filing a "SLAPP" lawsuit, short for strategic lawsuits against public participation. SLAPP lawsuits have been criticized as being a method of curtailing free speech and assembly by individuals, organizations or press by threatening lengthy and expensive legal proceedings in court. 35 states have anti-SLAPP laws aimed at preventing these types of lawsuits. North Dakota is not among them. Energy Transfer previously filed a federal RICO lawsuit against Greenpeace seeking $300 million in damages in 2017, but that case was dismissed by a federal judge. Energy Transfer then filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace in North Dakota state court shortly after. "The verdict against Greenpeace not only represents an assault on free speech and protest rights," said Rebecca Brown, president and CEO of the Center for International and Environmental Law, in a statement. "This case is a textbook example of corporate weaponization of the legal system to silence protest and intimidate communities. This misuse of the legal system stifles legitimate dissent and must be seen as a direct threat to environmental justice and democratic freedoms." In the weeks and months preceding the trial, Greenpeace raised the alarm that the damages sought by Energy Transfer, thought at the time to be in the $300 million range, would be catastrophic to the group, claiming that would amount to 10 times the group's annual U.S. operating budget. Energy Transfer reported over $82 billion in revenue in 2024. The damages ultimately awarded total roughly $667 million and will be split up among several arms of Greenpeace. Greenpeace USA is on the hook for about $404 million, while Greenpeace Fund Inc. and Greenpeace International must each pay some $131 million, according to The Associated Press. The 1,172-mile pipeline crosses four states and has been operating since late 2017 despite the controversy and the protest, which stemmed from a pipeline crossing under Lake Oahe near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe called the pipeline a violation of its treaty rights and claimed the pipeline route risked polluting the tribe's primary water source and would damage sacred sites. The protests at Standing Rock drew thousands of people from around the country who camped outside the pipeline's construction site. Celebrities and prominent figures including now-Trump cabinet members Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also visited the camp. But violence erupted between police, security guards and protestors several times, culminating in tear gas and water cannons being used against protestors. The camps were cleared in February of 2017. More than 140 people were arrested at the Standing Rock protests. One of the organizers of the protests was Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney for the Lakota People's Law Project, who was arrested during the demonstrations and charged with felony inciting a riot. Iron Eyes questioned Greenpeace's liability for the protests."I never met a single Greenpeace person, a representative, or ever went to a training or anything like that," Iron Eyes told CBS News. Instead, Iron Eyes found the ruling to delegitimize the concerns and agency of Native Americans who chose to protest at Standing Rock. "To hold them solely responsible for our fight, this is a tribal nation fight," he said. "I think it's disrespectful to tribal nations, to the Sioux Nation in particular, it was our nation, and our people who stood up." Sneak peek: The Puzzling Death of Susann Sills Inside Trump's call with Vladimir Putin 100 years since deadliest tornado in U.S. history
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Court finds Greenpeace liable in case over Dakota Access Pipeline
A court in North Dakota has found Greenpeace liable for hundreds of millions of dollars over actions to combat the Dakota Access Pipeline. The environmental organization will be liable for about $660 million per the verdict readout in court, Greenpeace USA interim Executive Director Sushma Raman said in a statement shared through a spokesperson. That amount could put Greenpeace at risk of bankruptcy. The group vowed to fight the verdict. 'This is the end of a chapter, but not the end of our fight,' Raman said. 'Energy Transfer knows we don't have $660 million. They want our silence, not our money.' Energy Transfer, the company behind the pipeline that had accused Greenpeace of defamation and trespass, among other activities, celebrated the decision. 'While we are pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, 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,' the company said. 'It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law. That the disrupters have been held responsible is a win for all of us,' the company's statement continued. Greenpeace has argued that it only played a small role in the protests, which drew massive crowds that were opposed to the project. The group has argued that the case was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation suit and an attempt to silence critics. 'This is a freedom of speech issue. This is a First Amendment case,' Greenpeace spokesperson Madison Carter said in an interview ahead of the verdict. She expressed concern that a verdict against Greenpeace would 'have a chilling effect for any organization that is interested in advocacy.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CBS News
20-03-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Greenpeace ordered to pay more than $660 million to fossil fuel company over pipeline protests
In a win for the oil and gas pipeline company Energy Transfer, a nine-person North Dakota jury found the environmental group Greenpeace liable for more than $660 million in damages and defamation for the 2016 to 2017 Standing Rock protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. In their lawsuit, Dallas-based Energy Transfer claimed Greenpeace was responsible for defamation, disruption and property damage for the protests that captured national attention in 2016. Greenpeace claimed the lawsuit threatened its freedom of speech. In a statement, Energy Transfer said, "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." Greenpeace plans to appeal the verdict. "This is the end of a chapter, but not the end of our fight. Energy Transfer knows we don't have $660 million. They want our silence, not our money." Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace Inc., told CBS News. Greenpeace accused Energy Transfer of filing a "SLAPP" lawsuit, short for strategic lawsuits against public participation. SLAPP lawsuits have been criticized as being a method of curtailing free speech and assembly by individuals, organizations or press by threatening lengthy and expensive legal proceedings in court. 35 states have anti-SLAPP laws aimed at preventing these types of lawsuits. North Dakota is not among them. Energy Transfer previously filed a federal RICO lawsuit against Greenpeace seeking $300 million in damages in 2017, but that case was dismissed by a federal judge. Energy Transfer then filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace in North Dakota state court shortly after. Energy Transfer is valued at over $60 billion and reported $82 billion in revenue in 2024. "The verdict against Greenpeace not only represents an assault on free speech and protest rights," said Rebecca Brown, president and CEO of the Center for International and Environmental Law, in a statement. "This case is a textbook example of corporate weaponization of the legal system to silence protest and intimidate communities. This misuse of the legal system stifles legitimate dissent and must be seen as a direct threat to environmental justice and democratic freedoms." In the weeks and months preceding the trial, Greenpeace raised the alarm that the damages sought by Energy Transfer, thought at the time to be in the $300 million range, would be catastrophic to the group, claiming that would amount to 10 times the group's annual U.S. operating budget. The damages ultimately awarded total roughly $667 million and will be split up among several arms of Greenpeace. Greenpeace USA is on the hook for about $404 million, while Greenpeace Fund Inc. and Greenpeace International must ach pay some $131 million, according to The Associated Press. The trial took place in Morton County, near the protest site. Greenpeace had requested a change in venue for the trial but was denied. The 1,172-mile pipeline crosses four states and has been operating since late 2017 despite the controversy and the protest, which stemmed from a pipeline crossing under Lake Oahe near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe called the pipeline a violation of its treaty rights and claimed the pipeline route risked polluting the tribe's primary water source and would damage sacred sites. The protests at Standing Rock drew thousands of people from around the country who camped outside the pipeline's construction site. Celebrities and prominent figures including now-Trump cabinet members Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also visited the camp. But violence erupted between police, security guards and protestors several times, culminating in tear gas and water canons being used against protestors. The camps were cleared in February of 2017. More than 140 people were arrested at the Standing Rock protests. One of the organizers of the protests was Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney for the Lakota People's Law Project, who was arrested during the demonstrations and charged with felony inciting a riot. Iron Eyes questioned Greenpeace's liability for the protests. "I never met a single Greenpeace person, a representative, or ever went to a training or anything like that," Iron Eyes told CBS News. Instead, Iron Eyes found the ruling to delegitimize the concerns and agency of Native Americans who chose to protest at Standing Rock. "To hold them solely responsible for our fight, this is a tribal nation fight," he said. "I think it's disrespectful to tribal nations, to the Sioux Nation in particular, it was our nation, and our people who stood up."
