The Greenpeace Verdict Should Concern Lovers of Democracy

Photo via Greenpeace

***

Headlines on March 20, 2025 relayed a shocking verdict from North Dakota’s Morton County District Court: Greenpeace, an environmental NGO, must pay $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer Operating, a midstream energy company, for its involvement in a series of protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Voices close to Greenpeace claim such a large payout would be financially crippling and pose an existential threat to the iconic environmental group. Journalists and commentators have decried the nine-member jury’s verdict as an incursion on the First Amendment-secured rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. The ruling comes amid an unprecedented shift towards autocracy in the federal government following the reelection of President Donald J. Trump, who threatens in both word and action to attack systems and rights once thought inexpungible. This damaging verdict, however, was in no way linked to executive action, an alarming detail that may point to systemic flaws in this country that transcend parties and politics.

Before we contemplate these implications, I will provide context regarding the case itself.

The Dakota Access Pipeline was planned and constructed between 2014 and 2017. The project was led by Energy Transfer along with partner organizations in the energy sector. Notable financial firms, including Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase, provided financial support. The pipeline carries hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil underground from North Dakota to Illinois. Its purpose is to facilitate the transportation of light crude from North Dakota’s Bakken rock formation. Extraction from this region began expanding rapidly in 2006, but oil was mostly transported by rail before the DAPL’s construction.  

The project was marked by a myriad of regulatory and legal hurdles brought by environmental concerns and the pipeline’s proximity to the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, as well as non-sovereign cultural lands of the Upper Sioux tribe. Beginning in 2016, members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and others began protesting the DAPL, citing a lack of respect for tribal sovereignty and the Standing Rock Reservation’s founding treaties. Demonstrators who trespassed on construction sites were met with attack dogs, riot gear, and military-grade equipment. There were also several cases of arson and property damage linked to protesters, which amounted to millions of dollars in damages. The pipeline has remained commercially operational since 2017 despite multiple legal challenges by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

Energy Transfer turned to the courts to recover losses incurred during the process. Greenpeace was one target in a flurry of litigations. The oil company accused the environmental nonprofit of providing resources including supplies, intel, and training to encourage Dakota Access Pipeline protesters to commit criminal acts. In a statement released on September 9, 2024, Energy Transfer stated that the purpose of the lawsuit was “to hold [Greenpeace] responsible for the defamation, disruption, and property destruction they inflicted.” An article posted on Greenpeace’s website that June claimed the plaintiff overplayed the NGO’s role in the protests, which were led by a coalition of Native Americans headed by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Another Greenpeace article called the allegation “rooted in racism in its erasure of the Indigenous leadership in North Dakota.”

Greenpeace has repeatedly referred to the litigation as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or a “SLAPP” suit. Energy Transfer denies this assertion. Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute outlines two defining characteristics of SLAPP suits: the claimant has no true legal claims against the defendant, and the goal of the litigation is to either temporarily prevent their critics from making public statements against them or to make critics spend all of their time and resources defending the SLAPP suits. Over 30 states have laws prohibiting SLAPP suits, but North Dakota is not one of them. Moreover, a nearly identical case brought by Energy Transfer was dismissed by a federal judge in 2019, which brings the merit of the company’s legal claims into question. However, whether the case is ultimately deemed a SLAPP suit or not depends on if Greenpeace is found liable for wrongdoing, which they were in this case.

The verdict is shrouded in potential corruption. Civil cases in lower courts rely on civilian juries to decide the facts, which can lead to biased decisions. Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel at Greenpeace, said that the jury was “Drawn from a community heavily affected by the events.” The NGO reportedly raised concern regarding the jury’s impartiality to the North Dakota Supreme Court and requested a venue change. This request was denied.

Still, Greenpeace’s messaging since the verdict has been far from defeatist. The organization vowed to appeal the decision to higher courts and filed a lawsuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands to recover fees and damages by leveraging European Union anti-SLAPP protections.

Despite the lost battle, the war is far from over, and question marks surrounding the merit of both the claim and the verdict give reason for supporters of Greenpeace to be hopeful yet. Nevertheless, corporate power across the nation will delight in the effectiveness of Energy Transfer’s efforts to quiet public dissent, and the verdict may have a chilling effect on organized forms of democratic participation going forward.

This story also reveals an uncomfortable truth. As the Trump administration mounts attack after attack on America’s constitutional system, it often seems as though the courts are our last defense. In this case, however, this nation’s rule of law was appropriated by a private corporation and employed to repress an entity that strives to promote the desires of We the People. A multi-billion-dollar company harnessed the system we call justice to flex and leer at activists and protesters because of a pecuniary advantage reaped from exploits just like the DAPL.In this story, it feels like the little guy is getting stepped on, and make no mistake, the little guy represents all of us. When viewed in this light, today is a very sad day indeed.