“`html
MANDAN, N.D. — A legal battle involving a Texas-based pipeline company and Greenpeace is set to begin in North Dakota on Monday. The lawsuit, brought by Energy Transfer, accuses the environmental organization of defamation, obstruction, and violent acts during protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace asserts that the case poses a significant threat to free speech and its ongoing operations.
This lawsuit is rooted in the protests that occurred in 2016 and 2017 concerning the pipeline’s proposed crossing of the Missouri River, located upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s land. The tribe has consistently voiced concerns that the pipeline could jeopardize their water supply. During the protests, which drew thousands of participants, hundreds faced arrest.
Energy Transfer, along with its subsidiary Dakota Access, claims that Greenpeace, both its international entity and its U.S. counterpart, coordinated disruptive activities that included trespassing, defamation, and even acts of violence tied to the protests. The lawsuit also implicates Greenpeace Fund Inc., which assists in financing the organization. This trial, taking place in Mandan, is expected to unfold over a five-week period.
Energy Transfer asserts that Greenpeace’s actions were aimed at hindering the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which has been operational since June 2017 and is currently transiting oil. The company’s suit seeks substantial monetary compensation for the alleged damages incurred due to the protests.
Greenpeace International contends that it should not be a defendant in this case, arguing that it functions separately from the U.S.-based organizations and that its personnel had no involvement in the protests in North Dakota. Greenpeace USA has also highlighted the lack of concrete evidence from the plaintiffs to support their allegations throughout the legal proceedings.
Earlier this month, Greenpeace’s attempts to have the case dismissed or narrowed were denied by a judge. The leadership of Greenpeace views this trial as essential for safeguarding First Amendment rights, particularly freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly. Sushma Raman, the Interim Executive Director of Greenpeace USA, emphasized that a negative ruling could endanger these liberties for all citizens, including journalists and activists.
As part of their involvement, Greenpeace USA provided training focused on nonviolent methods and safety during the protests. Legal advisor Deepa Padmanabha remarked that if the court sides with Energy Transfer, it might set a precedent where individuals could be held accountable for the actions of others at peaceful demonstrations, which could deter public participation in future protests.
In a counter-move, Greenpeace International filed an anti-intimidation lawsuit against Energy Transfer in Amsterdam, claiming that the company’s legal actions are baseless and seeking compensation for costs and damages.
From Energy Transfer’s perspective, the lawsuit is not an issue of free speech but rather about adherence to legal standards. Company spokesperson Vicki Granado articulated that they uphold everyone’s right to express their views and engage in lawful protest. However, she noted that actions taken outside the legal framework warrant a response from the legal system.
This case follows a similar legal action taken by Energy Transfer in federal court back in 2017, which a judge ultimately dismissed in 2019. Subsequently, the company launched the current lawsuit in state court.
Since its inception in 1996 with a small workforce and limited pipeline mileage, Energy Transfer has experienced massive growth, now employing 11,000 people and operating a vast network of over 125,000 miles of pipelines and related facilities.
“`
