A lawsuit from a Texas pipeline company targeting Greenpeace with potential claims worth hundreds of millions of dollars has moved forward with opening statements beginning this Wednesday. The environmental organization faces accusations of attempting to suppress dissent against the oil industry.
Earlier this week, jury selection for the trial took place, allowing proceedings to commence in Mandan, North Dakota. The trial is anticipated to span approximately five weeks.
The legal battle originates from protests that occurred in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access oil pipeline, particularly focusing on its controversial crossing of the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has consistently opposed the pipeline, citing concerns over risks to its water supply. Completion of the pipeline was achieved in 2017.
Energy Transfer, based in Dallas, along with its subsidiary Dakota Access, is charging Greenpeace International—an organization rooted in the Netherlands—and its American division, Greenpeace USA, with numerous allegations including trespass, nuisance, and defamation. Also implicated is Greenpeace Fund Inc., which serves as the funding branch for the organization.
According to the lawsuit, Greenpeace is accused of stalling pipeline construction, maligning the companies involved, and orchestrating illegal actions such as trespassing, vandalism, and violent acts by protestors.
Greenpeace stands firm in denying these allegations. The organization’s representatives have pointed out that the lawsuit could target $300 million, referencing a figure from a previous federal case. However, the suit currently requests damages that will be determined during the trial.
Greenpeace argues that the lawsuit exemplifies corporate power being wielded to intimidate critics and represents an important test case for free speech and the right to protest.
“This matter is about bringing attention to a fight that is pivotal for the future of the First Amendment. Those who initiate such lawsuits prefer to keep these battles hidden and unheard,” said Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace Senior Legal Adviser.
Conversely, Energy Transfer asserts that the core of the lawsuit lies in Greenpeace’s disregard for legal adherence, and not a conflict over free speech. Vicki Granado, a spokesperson for the company, has previously commented, “We uphold the rights of Americans to voice their viewpoints and legally protest. But when actions stray outside legal boundaries, the legal system exists to address those issues.”
Previously, the company pursued a similar lawsuit in federal court in 2017, which was dismissed by a judge two years later. Undeterred, Energy Transfer redirected its legal efforts to the current case being contested in state court.
