Latest news with #StandingRockSiouxTribe
Scientific American
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Scientific American
about the Legal Battles around Standing Rock
Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American 's Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. 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!
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge blasts Army Corps for pipeline protests, orders $28M in damages to North Dakota
Opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline camp north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on Dec. 3, 2016, outside Cannon Ball, N.D. (Photo by) A federal judge has ordered the United States government to pay North Dakota nearly $28 million dollars, finding that the executive branch 'abandoned the rule of law' in its response to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests of 2016 and 2017. In the lawsuit, filed in 2019, North Dakota requested $38 million in damages from the United States government — the total sum it claims it paid for policing and cleaning up the demonstrations. In a long-awaited decision filed Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor sided with the state, finding the Corps at fault for negligence, public nuisance and civil trespass claims. More Dakota Access Pipeline coverage 'While North Dakota was drowning in the chaos of the protests, the United States dropped an anvil into the pool and turned up the turmoil,' he wrote in a nearly 120-page order. Thousands came to south-central North Dakota to protest the construction of the crude oil pipeline in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which views the project as a looming environmental hazard and an encroachment upon Native territory. It has also accused the pipeline of disrupting sacred cultural sites. Demonstrators set up camp near where the pipeline crosses beneath Lake Oahe — a reservoir on the Missouri River managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers less than a half-mile upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Opponents urged the Army Corps of Engineers — and later, the federal courts — to deny the pipeline's developer, Energy Transfer, the land easement necessary to cross Lake Oahe. The largest demonstration camp was located on land managed by the Corps. The protests lasted from spring of 2016 to February of 2017, when former Gov. Doug Burgum ordered protesters to evacuate the land. 4 highlights from the 4-week DAPL protest trial Traynor wrote the Army Corps was legally required to enforce its property rights as soon as it became aware of the protests — either by requiring the demonstrators to obtain a permit to use its land or forcing the protesters to leave. Early on in the demonstrations, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe was in talks with the Army Corps about obtaining a special use permit, but those negotiations fell through, witnesses testified during the trial last year. In September 2016, the Corps published a press release stating the permit had been granted, despite that the tribe never completed the application process. Had the Corps followed through with the permit, the agency could have prevented millions in damages to the state, Traynor continued. Such a permit could have required demonstrators to handle cleanup, incentivized protest leaders to prevent damage to the land and prohibited protesters from establishing permanent structures at the campsites, he reasoned. He said the agency could have closed its land if protesters refused to comply with these requirements. The Wednesday ruling expands on a prior order published in December 2023, in which Traynor held that the Army Corps had violated its own permitting procedures by not requiring protesters to obtain the permit. Traynor found that the Corps' decision to allow protesters to use its land — coupled with the press release, which he characterized as an endorsement of the demonstrations — prolonged and intensified the movement. The United States argued other factors were responsible for the protest's rise in popularity, like the Corps' pending decision on the pipeline easement, the tribe's historic claims to the land and national media attention. Winona LaDuke, an Indigenous environmental activist, testified during the trial that the Corps' actions surrounding the permit and press release did not affect her decision to be at the camp, for example. Traynor in his Wednesday order called these elements 'red herrings' and 'immaterial' to the Corps' fault in the protests. 'Certainly, protesters had their own independent incentives for why they protested,' Traynor wrote, 'but as discussed above, the facts as adduced at trial show protesters were supported, enabled, and encouraged by the Corps' granting of the de facto special use permit that gave protesters a refuge from which they could conduct repeated illegal and illicit activities.' Lack of federal support overwhelmed law enforcement during DAPL, officials testify The United States has argued that the Corps responded the best it could in an extraordinary situation, and that it did not know the protests would unfold the way they did. Traynor in his decision rejected this claim, finding that evidence presented at trial showed that the U.S. government knew early on that the demonstrations could balloon in size and become unruly. North Dakota on multiple occasions asked for federal law enforcement to assist with managing the demonstrations, which Traynor said indicates the United States was aware that the protests posed a safety threat. The United States also said that it cannot be held liable for the damages because the protests were protected speech. Traynor said that while some protesters engaged in protected speech, the damages at issue in the lawsuit are not covered by the First Amendment since they resulted from violent behavior. He also noted the United States cannot use the First Amendment protections as a defense when no protesters are party to the case. 'The damages here were caused by tumultuous, unsanitary, and otherwise horrific conditions that caused significant violence to the land and responding law enforcement officers,' he wrote. Participants in the protest, including those who testified during the trial, emphasized that not all were violent. Demonstrators also objected to the response of law enforcement in riot gear and tactics of private security personnel. Traynor reduced the award to North Dakota by $10 million, since the U.S. government had already awarded the state a grant of that size to offset the cost of its emergency response to the protests. The state also received a $15 million donation from pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners in connection to the protests. Tribal activist faults North Dakota for high DAPL protest costs Traynor's decision comes more than a year after the case went to trial. During the four-week trial, which kicked off in February 2024, the court heard from a wide-ranging cast of witnesses — including Burgum and former Gov. Jack Dalrymple, Native activists, federal officials and law enforcement. It was not immediately clear whether the United States government would appeal Traynor's decision. The Corps did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday. North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong and Attorney General Drew Wrigley called the decision 'a major win for North Dakota taxpayers and the rule of law.' 'As outlined in trial testimony and Judge Traynor's ruling, decisions made by the Obama administration emboldened protesters and ultimately caused millions of dollars in damage to North Dakota, while endangering the health and safety of North Dakota communities, families and law enforcement officers who responded to the protests,' Armstrong and Wrigley said in a joint statement. Lake Oahe is the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's primary source of water. The pipeline's path also includes unceded land recognized as belonging to the Sioux Nation under an 1851 treaty with the U.S. government. The Dakota Access Pipeline has been in operation since 2017. In a lawsuit brought against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Standing Rock in 2016, a federal judge found that the Army Corps had violated the law by granting DAPL an easement without first conducting a full environmental review of the pipeline, which is required under the National Environmental Policy Act. The judge vacated the easement and ordered the pipeline to be drained of oil until the Army Corps could complete an environmental impact study. A higher court in 2021 upheld the decision to pull the easement but ruled that DAPL could remain in operation, concluding that Standing Rock had not shown it is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the pipeline is not shuttered. The environmental impact study is still in progress. A separate legal challenge brought by Energy Transfer against environmental group Greenpeace related to the DAPL protests went to trial in February. A nine-person jury of Morton County residents found Greenpeace liable for more than $660 million in damages. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Standing Rock leaders raise concerns about federal funding in meeting with ND, SD governors
North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong, South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden and Standing Rock Chairwoman Janet Alkire converse during a meeting Monday morning in Fort Yates. (Provided by North Dakota Governor's Office) FORT YATES, N.D. – Leaders of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe asked governors of North Dakota and South Dakota for help Monday as they face uncertainties with federal funding under President Donald Trump. The comments came during a rare meeting that brought North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong and South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden to consult with Standing Rock Tribal Chairwoman Janet Alkire and other tribal council members. Alkire, Armstrong and Rhoden, who convened in the council chambers of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Administrative Center, said they couldn't recall the last time both governors were in Fort Yates at the same time. The Standing Rock Reservation straddles both North Dakota and South Dakota. This puts the tribe in the unique situation of having to manage overlapping jurisdiction with both states and the federal government. Federal spending cuts threaten several services in Indian Country the federal government is legally required to provide, including programs that support public education, health care and law enforcement, Stateline reported last month. Multiple Standing Rock councilors asked Armstrong and Rhoden what the tribe can do to navigate these changes. 'We all know there's gonna be more,' Alkire said. Both governors said they share concerns about the cuts. 'We're in the mode of monitoring, just like you are,' Rhoden said. He defended the Trump administration's actions as necessary to bring federal spending under control. 'It's been many decades since I felt like we had a president that's actually looking beyond the horizon on fixing what's wrong with America,' he said. Alkire said she supports streamlining federal programs if it means Native nations get greater autonomy over their own resources, but she worries tribal communities will suffer if their services are cut. 'We in Indian Country have always faced underfunding, so when you cut something for us, it's drastic,' Alkire said. She said Standing Rock is counting on the North Dakota and South Dakota governments and their congressional delegations to make sure the federal government honors its responsibility to Native nations. Armstrong said he hopes tribal leaders alert their state counterparts as soon as they face issues. 'When disruption happens, we need to know,' he said. Setting the funding cuts aside, Alkire said the federal government has long neglected to address a laundry list of tribal sovereignty issues. The tribe needs more funding and staff from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as well as fewer restrictions on access to federal land and the Missouri River, to name a few, she said. 'I told Secretary Burgum that he had his work cut out for him,' Alkire said, referring to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Armstrong's predecessor as governor. Development was another recurring theme of the meeting. John Pretty Bear, a district representative, asked Rhoden if he would ask D.C. to fund water infrastructure development in western South Dakota. 'It's 2025, and we still have people that haul water,' Pretty Bear said. Rhoden said he's aware of the issue. 'I live in the middle of Meade County, and if you look at a water map of South Dakota as far as rural water projects, it is a black hole in that area,' he said. Councilors also asked the governors to help support economic development on the reservation so the tribe's younger generation can find jobs 'We need more businesses,' District Representative Joe White Mountain Jr. said. 'Our kids are growing up and they don't really have a future.' During a January address to North Dakota state lawmakers, Alkire called infrastructure a top priority for the tribe. Standing Rock hopes to one day build a bridge over the Missouri River connecting the reservation to Emmons County. Currently, to cross the Missouri River, Fort Yates residents must drive roughly an hour north to Bismarck or an hour south to Mobridge. The U.S. The Department of Transportation recently awarded the tribe a $14.5 million planning grant for the project, but more support will be needed to make the dream a reality, Akire said in the address. A bill signed by Armstrong in March authorizes the North Dakota Department of Transportation to accept ownership of the bridge if it gets built. Tribal officials said both states could do a better job of consulting with Standing Rock on a variety of issues, including education, transportation, gaming and land use. Rhoden, formerly South Dakota's lieutenant governor, assumed office at a low point for tribal relations in the state. Leaders of all nine Native American reservations in South Dakota voted to ban Rhoden's predecessor, Kristi Noem — now the U.S. secretary of Homeland Security — from their lands. The votes were in response to Noem's rhetoric about Indigenous communities in the state, including an unsubstantiated accusation that tribal leaders were 'personally benefiting' from Mexican drug cartels, and an assertion that Native American children 'don't have any hope.' 'I think this is an important day in our history and in the road to recovery, as far as rebuilding our relationships,' Rhoden said Monday. Armstrong's predecessor, Burgum, was widely regarded as an ally to the five federally recognized tribes that share land with North Dakota. Armstrong said Burgum's appointment to the Interior presents 'unique opportunities' to the tribe, North Dakota and South Dakota, and he hopes the three governments can continue working toward their common interests. 'There's not a lot of people that can get me out of Bismarck on less than a week's notice when the Legislature's meeting, but when the Chairwoman calls, we say yes,'' said Armstrong. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Greenpeace ruling mean for future protests?
Last week, a jury in North Dakota found an environmentalist organization guilty of defamation in a yearslong battle with one of the largest pipeline companies in the United States. After a two-day deliberation, the jury awarded $667 million in damages to Texas-based pipeline company Energy Transfer and Dakota Access LLC after it sued Greenpeace for its role in the protests that occurred nearly a decade ago over the Dakota Access Pipeline. The jury in Mandan, North Dakota, was given a laundry list of questions regarding Greenpeace's involvement in the protest — initially led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe — including if the group was liable for defamation, trespassing, conspiracy, etc. The Native American tribe has long been outspoken against the pipeline, arguing that it would be a threat to their water supply and sacred lands. In the lawsuit, Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of harming the company's reputation, encouraging vandalism to its equipment and putting its employees in harm's way. 'Its organizers trained protesters and even brought lockboxes they used to chain themselves to construction equipment. Protesters lobbed human feces and burning logs at security officers and vandalized construction equipment,' per The Wall Street Journal. However, since the verdict, Greenpeace has cried innocence, saying its involvement in the protests was misrepresented, and pledged to appeal the decision. 'What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer's blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. And while they also tried to distort the truth about Greenpeace's role in the protests, we instead reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to non-violence in every action we take,' Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace USA, told The Washington Post. 'We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech.' Legal representation for Energy Transfer also commented on the issue of First Amendment rights. Trey Cox, lead lawyer for the defendants, argued that the actions made by Greenpeace were not lawful. 'Peaceful protest is an inherent American right,' he said. 'However, violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable,' per The New York Times. Vicki Granado, a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer, added that 'this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace.' 'It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law.' The decision was less surprising in part because Greenpeace had initially and unsuccessfully tried to move the case due to fears of biased jurors living and being employed in the oil production region. The protests occurred between 2016 and 2017, involving monthlong encampments, and at times, protesters turned violent, creating a harsh environment for the people who lived in the area. Since the decision, many news outlets have speculated on how it will influence future actions by protesters and past national movements, such as the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 and the Anti-Israel college protests following the Oct. 7, 2023, attack, viewing them as comparable offenses in the name of activism. James B. Meigs, Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute, said one similarity between these protests is that they all had 'hybrid protests,' in which the majority of peaceful demonstrators are joined by a lesser amount of conditioned agitators who turn the events toward violence. 'Energy Transfer's suit against Greenpeace represents the first major success in exposing and penalizing the putatively legitimate nonprofits that funnel money and material support to the lawbreakers embedding themselves in these hybrid protests,' he wrote in City Journal. 'If the enormous verdict survives the inevitable appeals, it will be a major shot across the bows of progressive organizations that quietly foment political mayhem while maintaining plausible deniability.' The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board shared a similar sentiment, writing that Greenpeace got what it deserved: 'If the verdict deters other self-righteous outfits from aiding violent protests, including those against Israel, so much the better,' they wrote. 'The left-wing group says the lawsuit is retribution for exercising its First Amendment speech and protest rights. But there's no First Amendment right to defame or destroy.' Environmentalists interpreted the verdict differently. Beyond Fossil Fuels, a coalition of civil society organizations posted on social media that ordering GreenPeace to pay millions in damages was 'unacceptable and sets a dangerous precedent. #Fossilfuel corporations cannot and will not sue activists into submission.' Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told The Washington Post that though the verdict was unlikely to deter political activists, it could prevent them from actively protesting against fossil fuel projects while they're under construction. 'It sends a chilling message to physical climate protests — anything that actually disrupts fossil fuel production,' Gerrard said.
Al Jazeera
20-03-2025
- Business
- Al Jazeera
Greenpeace must pay $660m to oil company over pipeline protests, jury says
A jury in the United States has ordered Greenpeace to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in a defamation lawsuit brought by oil pipeline operator Energy Transfer, raising serious free speech concerns. The environmental advocacy group has said it will appeal Wednesday's verdict, which came almost a decade after activists joined a protest led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against the Dakota Access Pipeline, in one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in US history. The jury in North Dakota awarded more than $660m in damages across three Greenpeace entities, citing charges including trespass, nuisance, conspiracy and deprivation of property access. Energy Transfer, a Texas-based company worth $64bn, celebrated the verdict and has denied attempting to stifle speech. 'We would like to thank the judge and the jury for the incredible amount of time and effort they dedicated to this trial,' the company said in a statement. 'While we are pleased that Greenpeace will be held accountable for their actions, this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace.' The nine-person jury in Mandan, North Dakota, deliberated for two days, in the trial which began in late February, before finding in favour of Energy Transfer on most counts. However, a group of lawyers who monitored the case, calling themselves the Trial Monitoring Committee, said many of the jurors had ties to the fossil fuel industry. 'Most jurors in the case have ties to the oil and gas industry and some openly admitted they could not be impartial, although the judge seated them anyway,' the committee said in a statement, following jury selection. Greenpeace plans to appeal the verdict. Greenpeace International is also countersuing Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, accusing the company of using nuisance lawsuits to suppress dissent. A hearing in that case is set for July 2. 'The fight against Big Oil is not over today,' said Greenpeace International General Counsel Kristin Casper. 'We know that the law and the truth are on our side.' The 'water protectors' of Standing Rock Energy Transfer's case against Greenpeace dates back to protests in North Dakota almost 10 years ago. In April 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe set up a protest camp along the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline route to stop construction, calling themselves 'water protectors'. The camp continued for more than a year, drawing support at first from other Indigenous people around the country and later from other activists, including environmental organisations like Greenpeace, and even hundreds of US Army veterans. Even as wintry conditions set in and hundreds of police patrolled the protests with waves of violent arrests which also targeted journalists, the Sioux and their supporters remained in place. According to Energy Transfer's lead lawyer Trey Cox's closing arguments, Greenpeace's role involved 'exploiting' the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to advance its anti-fossil fuel agenda, according to the North Dakota Monitor. But Greenpeace maintains that it played only a small and peaceful role in the movement, which, it says, was led by Native Americans. As one Lakota organiser, Nick Tilsen, testified during the trial, the idea that Greenpeace organised the protests is 'paternalistic', according to the Lakota Times. Despite the protests, the pipeline, designed to transport fracked crude oil to refineries and on to global markets, became operational in 2017. Energy Transfer, however, continued its legal pursuit of Greenpeace, initially seeking $300m in damages through a federal lawsuit, which was dismissed. It then shifted its legal strategy to North Dakota's state courts, one of the minority of US states without protections against so-called 'Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation' (SLAPP). 'Drill, baby drill' Wednesday's verdict is another win for the fossil fuel industry, as President Donald Trump promises to open up the US to fossil fuel expansion, with his campaign slogan of 'drill, baby drill', including by eliminating air and water protections. Throughout the years-long legal fight, Energy Transfer's billionaire CEO Kelcy Warren, a major Trump donor, was often candid about his motivations. His 'primary objective' in suing Greenpeace, he said in interviews, was not just financial compensation but to 'send a message'. Warren went so far as to say that activists 'should be removed from the gene pool'. Critics call the case a textbook SLAPP, designed to silence dissent and drain financial resources. It comes as the Trump administration is also seeking to instate a wider crackdown on freedom of expression across the country. In a post on Bluesky responding to Wednesday's verdict, author and journalist Naomi Klein noted that 'attacks on protest and freedoms' affecting different movements including 'climate, Palestine, labor, migrant, trans and reproductive rights' should be seen as related. 'Fossil fuel companies should be forced to pay the public trillions in damages for the costs of planetary arson,' Klein added. Meanwhile, climate change is already contributing to increasingly severe and frequent disasters in the US and around the world, including recent fires in California, and an unprecedented inland hurricane in North Carolina. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed a new lawsuit last October against the US Army Corps of Engineers, which has jurisdiction over a section of the pipeline upstream from the Standing Rock Reservation, arguing that the pipeline is operating illegally and must be shut down, according to the North Dakota Monitor.
