A North Dakota jury found Greenpeace responsible for defamation, among other claims, brought by a company involved in the Dakota Access oil pipeline protests.
The jury of nine awarded Energy Transfer, a Dallas-based company, and Dakota Access, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, hundreds of millions in damages.
The lawsuit had accused Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. of defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts.
Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace’s Senior Legal Advisor, said: “We know this fight isn’t over.”
Padmanabha responded to questions regarding whether Greenpeace’s US operations would be affected by the amount of damages, saying that “the work will never stop.”
Padmanabha stated, “That is the most important message of today. We’re walking out. Then we’ll get together to figure out our next steps.”
Emails sent to Energy Transfer spokespeople were not returned immediately.
“Greenpeace’s work will never stop. That’s the important message today. We’re walking out, and then we’re going together to figure out our next steps,” Padmanabha said.
The case dates back to 2016 and 2017 when protests were held against the Dakota Access pipeline and its Missouri River crossing a few miles upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe reservation. The tribe has been opposing the pipeline for years as it poses a threat to their water supply. Since mid-2017, the multistate pipeline transports oil.
Trey Cox, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, has claimed that Greenpeace had a plan to stop construction of the pipeline. In his opening statement, Cox claimed that Greenpeace had paid protesters to enter the area to protest. They also sent supplies to blockade the pipeline, organized protester trainings and made false statements about the project.
The attorneys for Greenpeace said that there was no evidence supporting the claims. They also denied the claim that Greenpeace staff had little to no involvement in protests and that the organizations were not involved in Energy Transfer’s construction delays or refinancing.
Greenpeace’s representatives said that the lawsuit was a test of the First Amendment rights to free speech and protest and could threaten Greenpeace’s future. Energy Transfer’s spokesperson said that the lawsuit was about Greenpeace failing to follow the law and not free speech.
