The Showdown Begins: Greenpeace on Trial in North Dakota
On Monday, Greenpeace, one of the world’s most prominent environmental activist groups, found itself in the hot seat as a high-stakes trial began in North Dakota. The legal battle, brought by Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, threatens to bankrupt Greenpeace if successful. accomplice in organizing disruptive protests against the pipeline nearly a decade ago. The case has drawn national attention, with many viewing it as a pivotal test of free speech and the right to peaceful protest in the U.S.
Greenpeace’s interim director, Sushma Raman, has called the trial a “critical test of the future of the First Amendment,” emphasizing its implications under the Trump administration and beyond. Energy Transfer, however, maintains that the lawsuit is not about silencing free speech but about holding the group accountable for allegedly breaking the law. The company is seeking damages of $300 million—more than 10 times Greenpeace’s annual budget. Two other entities, Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International, are also named in the lawsuit.
A Pipeline, a Protest, and the Spark for a Legal Battle
The Dakota Access Pipeline, approved in 2016, became a flashpoint for controversy when Native American communities, led by the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, raised alarms about its potential to desecrate sacred land and endanger their water supply. The pipeline, which stretches 1,170 miles from North Dakota to Illinois, carries oil across the region, but its construction was met with fierce resistance.
Protesters, many of whom traveled from across the country, established a months-long encampment near the reservation. The movement, which adopted the slogan “Water Is Life,” was marked by clashes between demonstrators and police, as well as private security forces hired by Energy Transfer. The company claims that the protests caused significant damage to its equipment and harmed its ability to secure financing.
Waniya Locke, a Standing Rock activist, described the movement as organic and led by women, emphasizing that protesters were unarmed and peaceful. “We stood on the riverbanks unarmed,” she said. Despite their efforts, the camp was eventually dismantled, and the pipeline began operating—though final approvals remain pending.
The Lawsuit’s Twisted Path and Its Broader Implications
Energy Transfer first filed the lawsuit in 2017 in federal court, accusing Greenpeace and other defendants of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a law originally designed to combat organized crime. The case was dismissed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson, who ruled that the allegations failed to meet the legal threshold for a RICO violation. Undeterred, Energy Transfer refiled the lawsuit in state court, where it now accuse Greenpeace of trespass, defamation, conspiracy, and interfering with its business operations.
Greenpeace denies being the mastermind behind the protests, asserting that it played a supportive role, providing resources and training in nonviolent direct action. Its lawyers argue that the lawsuit is a thinly veiled attempt to suppress dissent and set a dangerous precedent for protest movements. “It’s pretty easy to see how, if successful, this kind of tactic could have a serious chilling effect on anyone who might consider participating in a protest,” said Deepa Padmanabha, a lawyer for Greenpeace.
The case has raised concerns among civil liberties advocates, who fear that a ruling in favor of Energy Transfer could open the door to “collective protest liability,” where organizations are held responsible for the actions of individual protesters—regardless of whether they condoned those actions. Greenpeace has also labeled the lawsuit a “SLAPP” (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), a tactic often used to silence critics by burdening them with legal costs.
A Hostile Jury and the Challenges Ahead
As the trial got underway in Mandan, North Dakota, many observers expressed skepticism about Greenpeace’s chances of winning over a jury in one of the most conservative states in the country. The state’s political landscape has been shaped by figures like former Gov. Doug Burgum, who was appointed as President Trump’s interior secretary, and Energy Transfer founder Kelcy Warren, a major donor to Trump’s campaigns.
The trial’s outcome could have significant ramifications for environmental activism and free speech. If Energy Transfer prevails, it could embolden corporations to use similar legal strategies to silence critics. For Greenpeace, the stakes are particularly high, as the damages sought exceed its annual budget. The group’s lawyers have vowed to fight the case vigorously, calling it a “David vs. Goliath” showdown.
A Countersuit Across the Atlantic
In a move that underscores the global dimensions of this legal battle, Greenpeace International has filed a countersuit against Energy Transfer in Amsterdam. Citing a new EU directive aimed at protecting public participation, the group is seeking to recover costs incurred during the litigation. The countersuit is the latest salvo in what has become a protracted and complex legal war.
Kristin Casper, general counsel for Greenpeace International, hinted that the countersuit is part of a broader strategy to push back against Energy Transfer’s efforts to silence critics. “This is about standing up for the right to peaceful protest and the right to hold corporations accountable,” she said. The first hearing in the Amsterdam case is set for July, adding another layer of intrigue to an already high-profile dispute.
The Bigger Picture: Free Speech, Protest, and Corporate Power
At its core, the trial is less about Greenpeace’s actions during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests and more about the balance of power between corporations and public-interest groups. If Energy Transfer succeeds in holding Greenpeace liable for the actions of protesters, it could set a chilling precedent for activism across the U.S.
Critics warn that such a ruling would embolden corporations to use legal intimidation to quash dissent, undermining the First Amendment and the democratic process. “This trial is about whether corporations can use the legal system to punish groups for speaking out,” said Greenpeace’s Sushma Raman. As the trial unfolds, the world is watching to see whether the courts will protect the rights of protesters or side with corporate interests in a case that could shape the future of activism for years to come.
