Heavy snow and difficult travel expected again, heaviest snow in southern Minnesota

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

A trial is set to begin Monday in North Dakota for a lawsuit that could force the environmental group Greenpeace USA to shut down.

first sued Greenpeace and other activists in federal court back in 2017

thousands of protestors who camped near the construction site for months

 delayed the pipeline’s start and increased costs by at least $300 million. A federal lawsuit by the company was dismissed, but it filed a 

 in North Dakota state court in 2019. That’s the case now headed to trial.

The pipeline company’s lawsuit claims Greenpeace and others engaged in an “unlawful and violent scheme to cause financial harm to Energy Transfer, physical harm to its employees and infrastructure, and to disrupt and prevent Energy Transfer’s construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.”

Greenpeace counters that the lawsuit is designed to silence free speech, but vows to continue in its campaign against fossil fuels and their climate-warming pollution.

Oil executive says, “They’e going to pay”

The Dakota Access Pipeline moves crude oil 1,172 miles from the booming oil fields of North Dakota to a pipeline hub in Patoka, Illinois. The $3.8 billion project was completed and placed into service in 2017.

Most of the controversy focuses on a small section, south of Bismarck, N.D., that crosses under a reservoir on the Missouri River. It’s near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation, which is why members started protesting the construction.

The tribe argues it wasn’t adequately consulted in the federal planning process, that construction crosses sacred sites and that the pipeline poses a pollution risk to its water supply. Energy Transfer 

The tribe’s demonstrations gained worldwide attention, and thousands of protesters traveled to and camped out in the area along the proposed pipeline route in 2016 and 2017. Police and protesters clashed, with 

officers using pepper spray and “nonlethal ammunition”

 to remove demonstrators from federal land. Police said protestors set fires and threw rocks at officers. At one point 

Energy Transfer didn’t respond to NPR’s request for an interview ahead of the trial. In a 2017 interview with CNBC, co-founder Kelcy Warren explained why his company was taking the unusual step of suing protesters.

“What happened to us was tragic,” Warren said. “They knew that the things that they were saying about us were inaccurate – things like we were on Indian property, that we didn’t communicate with the Standing Rock Sioux… I mean, it was just crazy stuff that they were saying, and we were greatly harmed by that.”

In the lawsuit, Energy Transfer claims Greenpeace lied about the company’s work to solicit donations, which the company says it used to organize and fund protests, including “violent attacks on Energy Transfer employees and property.” Greanpeace denies the allegations, saying it played a limited role in the protests, which were led by Native American groups.

“Everybody is afraid of these environmental groups and the fear that it may look wrong if you fight back with these people. But what they did to us is wrong, and they’re going to pay for it,” Warren said.

It’s unusual to hear statements like that from the executive of a large company, says Josh Galperin, associate law professor at Pace University.

“Normally we see firms, behind closed doors, grousing about this [protests] but publicly saying, ‘We respect free speech,’” Galperin says. “Kelcy Warren is quite different because he is pugilistic – he’s a fighter and he’s not driven here just by the bottom line.”

Warren has been a vigorous defender of his company and the oil and gas industry. Energy Transfer 

 specifically about the benefits of oil and gas and to counter Greenpeace’s claims.

says that if it loses the North Dakota case

, the organization “could face financial ruin, ending over 50 years of environmental activism.”

But in a call with reporters last week, the group tried to sound optimistic about winning the case, even though it will be decided by a jury of local residents in a state where oil is a major industry. Last month a judge denied the group’s request to gather evidence on a 

mailer critical of the Dakota Access protests that was sent to some Morton County residents in October

. The trial is taking place in Mandan, N.D., which is in Morton County.

Greenpeace argues that Energy Transfer is being disingenuous about the purpose of the lawsuit, which the company denies.

“This case is simple. Big Oil wants to silence its critics,” says Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace USA. Raman claims Energy Transfer is “abusing the legal system to silence critics” by filing a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” (SLAPP) case.

Such cases are usually designed to cost opponents money and force them to spend time defending against the case, according to the 

Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute

“My instinct here is that this is a SLAPP suit,” Galperin, the Pace law professor, says, because the $300 million in damages Energy Transfer is seeking is a lot of money for Greenpeace but not as significant to Energy Transfer. The company generated more than $82 billion in revenue last year.

“I tend to think that their real concern isn’t the financial loss,” Galperin says. “Their real concern is the persistence of the protest – the way it is capable of turning public opinion.”

 that do not have anti-SLAPP laws, which make it easier to get such cases dismissed and recover costs from plaintiffs that file them. That means even if Greenpeace wins this case it will cost the organization attorney fees and other costs. Greenpeace has not disclosed how much it has spent on the case so far, but says it’s “in the millions.” The group hopes a win will dissuade other companies from filing similar cases in the future.

“We’re trying to win this not only in the courtroom, but also outside the courtroom because we want to deter corporations from considering this tactic in the future,” says Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal adviser at Greenpeace USA.

While a loss could bankrupt Greenpeace USA, the group says the message that fossil fuels are heating the climate and hurting people will continue.

“You can’t sue a movement,” Raman says.

More than 400 environmental and other groups have signed an 

 expressing solidarity with Greenpeace. The letter reads, “We will not allow lawsuits like this one to stop us from advocating for a just, green and peaceful future.”

Jury selection is scheduled to begin Monday and the trial is expected to last about five weeks. Since both sides are dug-in on their positions, there haven’t been hints of settlement talks. So, once there’ a decision in the case an appeal seems likely.

Environmental News

Politics and Government News

Homepage

Jeff Brady

Author

The company behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline is suing Greenpeace for at least $300 million for damages the oil pipeline company says it suffered from protests in 2016 and 2017.

Greenpeace faces a $300 million lawsuit after Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Go Deeper.

Like this?