about the Legal Battles around Standing Rock
In 2016 a group of activists who called themselves water protectors—led by members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe—set up camp on the windswept plains of North Dakota. Their protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline quickly grew into one of the largest Indigenous-led movements in recent U.S. history. At the protest's height more than 10,000 people gathered to stand in defense of water, land and tribal sovereignty.
The response? Militarized police, surveillance drones, and a private security firm with war-zone experience—and eventually a sprawling lawsuit that arguably aimed to rewrite the history of Standing Rock.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
My guest today is Alleen Brown. She's a freelance journalist and a senior editor at Drilled, a self-described 'true-crime podcast about climate change.' The latest season of Drilled, which premiered on June 3, digs into the shocking legal battle the pipeline's builder, Energy Transfer, launched against Greenpeace.
Thank you so much for coming on to chat with us today.
Alleen Brown: Yeah, thank you for having me.
Feltman: So for folks who don't remember or maybe weren't paying as much attention as they should've, remind us what the Dakota Access Pipeline is.
Brown: Yeah, so the Dakota Access Pipeline is an oil pipeline that travels from kind of the western part of North Dakota to Illinois. And in 2016 and 2017 it was being completed and sort of inspired a big Indigenous-led movement of people who were attempting to stop it.
Feltman: Yeah, and what were their motivations for stopping the pipeline?
Brown: There were a few motivations. I think the biggest one and most famous one was that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe was worried about water contamination ...
Feltman: Mm.
Brown: The pipeline travels underneath the Missouri River, right next to the reservation and not far from where the tribal nation has a water-intake system, so they were really worried about an oil leak.
Feltman: Right, and it had actually—the route had been moved from what was initially planned to [in part] avoid that same concern in a predominantly white area; am I remembering that correctly?
Brown: Yeah, there were talks early on—one of the routes that was being considered was across the Missouri River upstream from the Bismarck-Mandan community's water-intake system. And so, you know, that's a more urban area that is predominantly white.
Feltman: And again, you know, reminding listeners—it has been a very eventful few years [laughs], to be fair—what exactly happened at Standing Rock? You know, this became a big sort of cultural and ecological moment.
Brown: Yeah, so to make a long story short, what became known as the Standing Rock movement started with a small group of grassroots people from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Eventually the tribe itself got really involved, and what started as kind of a small encampment opposed to the pipeline turned into these sprawling encampments, a sprawling occupation that, at times, had upwards of 10,000 people—people were kind of constantly coming and going. And all of these people were there to stand behind the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and stop the construction of the pipeline under the Missouri River.
In response—you know, there was a very heavy-handed response from law enforcement and the pipeline company. So, I think, when a lot of people think of Standing Rock, they think of private security dogs kind of lunging at pipeline opponents who are trying to stop bulldozers.
Feltman: Mm.
Brown: They think of law enforcement spraying water hoses in below-freezing temperatures at people who are protesting. You know, they might think of tear gas. So it was very, very intense for the people who were there.
Feltman: So in the new season of Drilled you're digging into a lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer, the company that built the pipeline, and, you know, folks might be surprised to hear that they sued at all, given that the pipeline was built. It's sort of the opposite direction [laughs] you might expect a lawsuit to be flowing, but then the lawsuit's claims are also very surprising. Could you summarize those for us?
Brown: Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I can share what I found in my reporting. I remember when this lawsuit, or another version of this lawsuit, was first filed in 2017—at that time I was working at The Intercept and had been digging into these documents from this private security company, TigerSwan. So I was talking to all kinds of people who had been at Standing Rock and looking at these reports from the private security company. I really didn't hear anything about Greenpeace and this big lawsuit, which started out as a RICO lawsuit—which is [one that regards] the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, designed to go after the Mafia—turned into a conspiracy lawsuit. The lawsuit had Greenpeace at the heart of everything.
Feltman: Mm.
Brown: The lawsuit was eventually overturned in federal court and refiled in state court in North Dakota, but the damages that they were originally demanding were around $300 million. Ultimately, in that state court case, [the jury] awarded Energy Transfer over $666 million.
Feltman: Wow. Could you tell us a little bit more about, you know, what it means to be accusing someone of conspiracy and sort of what Energy Transfer's actually trying to say happened here?
Brown: Yeah, so, you know, for there to be conspiracy you essentially have to have multiple parties kind of conspiring together to do crimes ...
Feltman: Mm.
Brown: And this lawsuit just morphed a number of times since it was originally filed. Again, eventually it was turned into a conspiracy suit, and the players that they were alleging were involved kind of changed over time. So by the time it became a conspiracy suit they were saying two individual Indigenous water protectors—which is what a lot of the pipeline opponents referred to themselves as well as this encampment that called itself Red Warrior Society that was maybe a little bit more kind of into doing direct actions that blocked bulldozers, for example, and Greenpeace were all conspiring together.
Feltman: Hmm, and so you had already been investigating the Dakota Access Pipeline for years when this lawsuit came about. In your mind, you know, what are the sort of major points that you had uncovered in your reporting that are, are really conflicting with this narrative from Energy Transfer?
Brown: I would say one thing about Standing Rock is that everyone that you talk to who was involved will say, 'I'm gonna tell you the real story of Standing Rock.' So it's like people have very diverse ideas about exactly what happened, and I think that speaks to how many people were there and how many people were kind of approaching this question of pipeline construction from different angles.
There were people coming in from all over the world, and some people were really, you know, aligned with what the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe wanted; some people had their own agendas. But people had, I think, overall really good intentions.
So there was a lot of diversity, a lot of chaos—you know, the National Guard was called in, and there were kind of federal-level law enforcement resources being used and a lot of pressure from private security, which was working with law enforcement that really amplified the tension in those spaces. There were these lights beaming down on the camp. There were people infiltrating the camps and there were drones flying around.
I think, for me, understanding the way, I think, militarism and the war on terror were brought home and into this Indigenous-led resistance space is something that I've really focused on.
Feltman: Right. So, you know, based on your reporting this Energy Transfer lawsuit had raised a lot of questions, and was even dismissed initially and had to be sort of repackaged. But then it sounds like they sort of got everything they wanted out of the lawsuit. What do you think are the larger implications of that?
Brown: One thing is that a lot of people think of this lawsuit as a SLAPP suit, which stands for 'strategic lawsuit against public participation.'
So there are a number of groups that have called this lawsuit a SLAPP. Um, there's this coalition called Protect the Protest Coalition, which includes legal advocacy and movement organizations, like the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Union of Concerned Scientists. [ Editor's Note: Greenpeace is also a member of the Protect the Protest Coalition. ] Another group that has called this a SLAPP is the Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace Trial Monitoring Committee, which came together to keep an eye on the trial. That group is wide-ranging, but it's mostly lawyers—so human rights attorneys, there's a First Amendment attorney, law professors, nonprofit leaders, attorneys who have represented Indigenous and environmental defenders. Um, Greenpeace, of course, considers this a SLAPP suit.
So, the idea is that, you know, it's not necessarily meant to win on the merits; it's also meant to scare people and send a message and drain a lot of different people of time and resources. This jury did deliver the verdict that the pipeline company wanted, and now the pipeline company can point to that verdict, even if it's overturned, and say, 'Well, a jury in North Dakota said XYZ is true about the Standing Rock movement.'
Feltman: Mm.
Brown: And, you know, a big part of this case, beyond the conspiracy, were these defamation claims. And, you know, Energy Transfer was saying, 'It's defamatory to say that the pipeline company deliberately destroyed sacred sites,' which was a huge issue in this whole pipeline fight ...
Feltman: Mm-hmm.
Brown: 'It's defamation to say that private security used violence against nonviolent pipeline opponents.' The third one is that 'it's defamation to say that the pipeline crossed tribal land.'
Feltman: Mm.
Brown: So those things—two of those things are things that come directly from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe stands behind. So now Energy Transfer has this record that they can lean on ...
Feltman: Mm.
Brown: And we don't know exactly how they'll use that.
They've really hit Greenpeace hard, and I think [this] opens the door against the environmental movement at large.
Feltman: Yeah, well, thank you so much for coming on to chat about the show with us today. I'm definitely looking forward to hearing more of this story over the course of the season.
Brown: Thank you so much for having me.
Feltman: And just a small update, listeners: Greenpeace has stated its intention to appeal the jury's verdict.
That's all for today's episode. You can start listening to the latest season of Drilled wherever you get your podcasts. For more of Alleen's work, check out her newsletter, Eco Files.
Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naeem Amarsy and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.
For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Afghans both hopeful, disappointed after Russia's Taliban recognition
Russia's decision to formally recognise the Taliban government has been seen as an opening for a stronger economy by some Afghans, while others were sceptical that it would improve their lot. Russia became the first country to acknowledge the Taliban authorities on Thursday, after a gradual building of ties that included removing their "terrorist organisation" designation and accepting an ambassador in recent months. The Taliban authorities had not been recognised by any state in the nearly four years since sweeping to power in 2021, ousting the foreign-backed government as US-led troops withdrew after a two-decade war. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and in a fragile recovery from four decades of conflict. "With the current situation in Afghanistan, with all the challenges, everyone is worried. If the world recognises Afghanistan, we will be happy, currently, even the tiniest thing matters," Gul Mohammad, 58, said on Friday in the capital Kabul. Despite having bitter memories of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, when he "lost everything" and became a refugee in Pakistan, he acknowledges that "the priorities are different now". Jamaluddin Sayar, 67, predicted that "trade and economic prosperity will now blossom". The retired pilot said other countries, "both western and eastern", should recognise the government and "stop spreading propaganda against the Islamic Emirate", using the Taliban authorities' name for their administration. - Won't 'lead to anything' - Russian and Afghan officials praised the move as an opening for deeper cooperation, notably in economic and security arenas. Security concerns have been a key avenue for coordination between the Taliban authorities and the international community, amid fears Afghanistan would become fertile ground for increased militant activity. The authorities have prioritised security and made repeated assurances that Afghan soil would not be used by any group to plan attacks on other nations. However, Pakistan's ties with the Taliban authorities have been strained over a surge in militant activity since their takeover and last year, an attack claimed by the Islamic State group's branch in Afghanistan killed 137 people in a Moscow concert hall. In a country where dissent and protest is tightly controlled, some Kabul residents were afraid to openly criticise the Taliban authorities. Atef, not his real name, was unconvinced better relations between Afghanistan and Russia would improve the livelihoods of ordinary Afghans. "I think Afghanistan will fall into the traps of the Russians again, the issues and challenges will increase, and there is nothing that can help ordinary people," the unemployed 25-year-old said. "People are struggling, and they will still struggle with or without the recognition." For Afghan women's rights activists, particularly those who have advocated for isolating the Taliban government, the recognition was seen as a setback that "legitimises" restrictions on women. The Taliban authorities, who also ruled the country between 1996 and 2001, have again imposed an austere version of Islamic law. Norway-based Afghan women's rights activist Hoda Khamosh was defiant against the impact of the Russian move. "Human rights organisations right now are trying to recognise gender apartheid in Afghanistan because the Taliban are a repressive regime against women," she said. "Therefore, these recognitions will not lead to anything." qb/sw/jfx/mtp
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Medicaid cuts are coming for rural Americans: ‘It's going to have to hit them first'
When Hurricane Helene drowned western North Carolina in muck and floodwater last year, it caught folks off-guard. Now, local leaders in places like Asheville expect the Republican-led reconciliation bill – called the 'big, beautiful bill' by Donald Trump – to bear down on rural America. And they wonder whether people are missing the warning signs. 'It's going to have to hit them first,' said Laurie Stradley, CEO of Impact Health in Asheville, a Medicaid-funded non-profit providing social services to some people still digging out from the flood. Medicaid is the single largest health insurance program in the US. The public program covers 71 million low-income, disabled and elderly US residents. It pays for half of all US births and the care of six in 10 nursing home residents. When Trump's sprawling tax-and-spending bill passed on Thursday, it heralded more than $1tn in federal cuts to Medicaid, which experts worry will push Republican-led states to abandon parts of the program and leave people without access to timely healthcare. 'This is an extraordinarily regressive bill,' said Joan Akler, executive director and co-founder of Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families. 'This is the largest rollback of healthcare coverage that we've ever seen and all in service of an agenda to drive tax cuts that will disproportionately benefit wealthy people and corporations.' Medicaid 'expansion' is a key provision of Obamacare, formally called the Affordable Care Act of 2010. The expansion provides largely no-cost health insurance to people earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, or $36,777 for a family of three. Although Obamacare has been the law for more than a decade, Medicaid expansion proved politically divisive in Republican states, and many only recently decided to accept enormous federal subsidies to cover their residents. The Medicaid cuts in the bill could have particularly acute consequences in North Carolina, a politically competitive state, where experts said the bill could trigger a 'kill switch' to end Medicaid expansion. 'If the state spends any state dollars to implement the expansion population or expansion coverage, it triggers an automatic ending to Medicaid expansion,' said Kody Kinsley, North Carolina's former secretary of health and an architect of the state's Medicaid expansion. North Carolina is set to lose $32bn in federal funding in the next decade, according to an analysis by the office of the Republican senator Thom Tillis, who represents the state. He's one of just three Senate Republicans who voted against the bill on Tuesday. North Carolina's expansion only went into effect in December 2023, and in less than 19 months it enrolled more than 650,000 people – all of whom will lose coverage if the program ends. Those North Carolinians are only some of the 17 million people expected to lose health insurance by 2034 across the country, according to estimates from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Nearly 12 million people will lose insurance because of attacks on Medicaid. 'Ultimately, Medicaid being cut is going to kill people,' said Molly Zenkler, a nurse at Mission hospital in Asheville. 'I deal with people getting their feet literally amputated because they don't have access to diabetic care. This is just going to get increasingly worse.' The reconciliation bill cuts state funding through a number of provisions. On healthcare specifically, the bill attacks complex financial maneuvers states use to draw down federal funds. It also requires states to spend enormous sums – perhaps tens of millions of dollars per state – implementing work requirements, effectively adding layers of expensive red tape. Congressional Republicans in favor of the bill argue it targets 'waste, fraud and abuse'. However, it is already well-known that most Medicaid beneficiaries who can work do, and that Medicaid is one of the most cost-efficient health programs in the US, according to the American Hospital Association. North Carolina is one of a dozen conservative states that wrote a 'trigger' law into Medicaid expansion. Not all function like North Carolina's – the laws are, in the words of an expert with Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy, a 'lesson in federalism' – but they nevertheless underscore the difficult choices state legislators will face because of congressional Republicans' cuts. One such program that could be on the chopping block is a pilot with Impact Health, which uses Medicaid expansion funds for social needs that affect health – an effort to reduce long-term costs. Stradley gave the example of a Medicaid-covered child with severe asthma who hit the local emergency room three times a week for breathing treatments. Impact's program used Medicaid funds to replace moldy rugs with laminate flooring in the child's home, and to buy a vacuum with a Hepa filter. The cost to Impact Health was about $5,000, 'but now this child is going to the emergency room a couple times a year instead of a couple times a month. And so, every month we're saving about $4,500.' The program's knock-on effects boost the local economy: the work to replace the rug was done by a local carpenter, and the child's mother isn't calling out from work, increasing her job stability. 'One of the ways that we talk about this program is that it's a hand up rather than a handout,' she said. 'Almost half of the folks that are recipients in our program are children … Then you look at the adults. Most of them are working multiple jobs, and those jobs don't come with benefits, because they're working two or three part-time jobs in order to make ends meet.' The enormity of Medicaid means large cuts to the program imperil not only patients, but the institutions that serve them – especially rural hospitals and clinics hanging on 'by a thread', according to Kinsley. One of US residents' few rights to healthcare is in emergency departments, where hospitals are required to stabilize patients regardless of ability to pay. That makes emergency departments the go-to source for healthcare for the uninsured. An analysis released by the Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill earlier this year showed that 338 rural hospitals around the country were at risk of imminent closure with the cuts to Medicaid contained in the bill. Rural states such as Kentucky are expected to be disproportionately hard-hit as well. Thirty-five of the rural hospitals at risk of closure – about 10% – are in Kentucky, even though Kentucky's 4.5 million residents comprise about 1.3% of the US's population. About a third of Kentucky residents are on Medicaid, according to figures from Kentucky's cabinet for health and family services. The program benefits about 478,900 adults. The situation is similarly dire in Arizona, another battleground state, which also has a trigger law on the books. Although the reconciliation bill may not 'trigger' a rollback of Medicaid expansion, it does undermine a key financing mechanism for the state's program called a 'provider tax'. 'We estimate Arizona's healthcare system would lose over $6bn over the next seven years,' said Holly Ward, a spokesperson for the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association, in a statement. 'In other words, more than 55% of Arizona hospitals would be operating in the red,' she said. 'Hospitals will be, at best, forced to restrict services such as obstetrics, behavioral healthcare and other complex services, and at worst, will close their doors altogether.' Another issue is the potential for Republicans' cuts to drive up the cost of healthcare for Americans who are privately insured, including through employers. As hospitals fight to survive, they will try to extract as much money as possible from other sources of funding – namely, commercial insurance. In addition, rural healthcare providers worry the water will be muddied by the sheer complexity of US healthcare. Private companies have a hand in managing – and therefore branding – state Medicaid programs. 'A lot of our rural voters may not even realize that what they have is Medicaid, because there are so many names for it,' said Stradley. However, the precarious situation is already worrying people whose lives have been stabilized because of Medicaid. Amanda Moynihan is a single mother of three children – ages nine, 12 and 16 – living in Kuna, Idaho. Medicaid expansion has helped her become a 'functioning human in society', she said. Routine medical care for herself and her children, along with other assistance programs, has meant the difference between grinding poverty and a shot at the middle class. Idaho, one of the most politically conservative states in the union, expanded Medicaid in 2018 with an overwhelming ballot-referendum vote of 61-39. Even if Idaho's 'trigger law' does not go into effect, the state could face similar fiscal challenges to Arizona. 'Back two years ago, before I started school, I was just in fight-or-flight, just trying to pay the bills there. I didn't ever see a future of what I could do. And then I just started with one class,' she said. Moynihan has completed an associate degree in psychology and is starting the social work bachelor's degree program at Boise State University in the fall. For now, she's working part time with the Idaho Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired and planning to pick up work at a gas station because it has a college scholarship benefit. But without stability to pursue higher education, her future 'would be making the minimum wage, which is about $15 an hour, barely paying rent in a low-income household'.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump signs tax and spending bill at White House picnic in photos
WASHINGTON (AP) — At a Fourth of July White House picnic, President Donald Trump signed a major tax and spending bill, celebrating its passage through the Republican-led Congress. ___ This is a photo gallery curated by AP photo editors.
