A judge in North Dakota on Wednesday found that Energy Transfer must be held financially accountable for its role in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests almost ten years ago. The environmental group, which has been engaged in climate-related campaigning for decades, faces a significant constitutional setback with this decision.
Energy Transfer, the Texas-based business responsible for the Dakota Access Pipeline, filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund Inc., its fund-raising arm, for$ 300 million in damage. According to National Review, the organization charged Greenpeace of defamation and other activities related to its aid of protests against the pipeline’s design.
Greenpeace argued that the complaint was an attempt to silence economic engagement, even using the legal fight to raise money for its cause. Following a three-week trial, the judge finally decided to favor Energy Transfer after two weeks of deliberation.
Co-founder of Energy Transfer Kelcy Warren stated that it was crucial to stop what he termed a “false tale” spread by economic protesters. Warren felt that the complaint was necessary to protect the reputation of his business, according to The New York Times.
The Dakota Access Pipeline demonstrations, which took place in 2016 and 2017, gained the support of prominent Democrat politicians, activists, Native American tribes, and stars. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other indigenous organizations objected to the network because they worried it might contaminate drinking water and obliterate spiritual historical sites.
A section of the network runs beneath Lake Oahe, a Missouri River pond close to the Standing Rock ticket, along with crude oil coming from North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to Illinois. The pipeline commenced operation in early 2017 while Trump was president, despite continued presentations and lawful efforts to end its development.
The protests at the site continued for decades, with campaigners setting up camps close to Standing Rock and sometimes engaging in law enforcement verbal altercations. The movement served as a platform for democratic protesters and supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders ‘ campaign for president in 2016.
Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of funding outdoor protesters, providing materials, organizing education, and disseminating false information about the climate risks of the pipeline. The business argued that these activities caused the company to take longer to complete the project, cost more, and harm its reputation online. According to Energy Transfer, the firm was reportedly billed by the company for protest-related difficulties of$ 340 million and sought punitive damages for what it thought was intentional interference.
Greenpeace responded by downplaying its presence in the demonstrations and arguing that the complaint posed a serious risk to First Amendment free speech protections. The firm also warned that the ruling’s economic repercussions might prevent it from continuing to engage in engagement.
Deepa Padmanabha, a senior legal consultant to Greenpeace, told the Associated Press following the ruling,” Greenpeace is never going to stop working.” That’s the really important information of now, and we’re just going to leave and work together to determine what our next steps will be.
According to National Review, the financial repercussions of the ruling may have a significant influence on Greenpeace’s operations and have a potential impact on how activist groups will organize large-scale protests against companies in the future.
