Environmental Law | Defamation Lawsuit | Corporate Litigation

A Collision of Rights: Environmental Protest vs. Pipeline Profits

In a high-stakes clash between corporate litigation and environmental advocacy, Energy Transfer—developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline—claims that Greenpeace orchestrated a campaign of defamation and illegal conduct during the 2016–2017 Standing Rock protests, resulting in a landmark $660 million jury verdict. Greenpeace vehemently denies wrongdoing, characterizing the lawsuit as a calculated attack on free speech and grassroots resistance.

Jury Verdict Details

In March 2025, a nine-person jury in North Dakota ruled against Greenpeace entities, finding them liable under state law for:

• Defamation
• Trespass, Nuisance, and Civil Conspiracy

The jury awarded nearly $667 million, including over $400 million in punitive damages, citing the protests’ alleged role in delaying construction and causing financial harm to Energy Transfer.(Reuters, AP News, Climate Change Litigation)

Greenpeace asserts this verdict could bankrupt its U.S. operations, yet also pledges to mount an aggressive appeal strategy.(AP News, CBS News)

Greenpeace’s Defense: An Assault on Protest Rights

Greenpeace’s legal team and civil rights observers argue that the lawsuit exemplifies SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) — a tactic used by powerful entities to suppress dissent through costly legal burdens:

• They highlight biased jury selection in an oil- and gas-dominated region, restricting fair representation.(The Guardian, Energy Transfer Trial Monitoring)
• Trial observers criticized the secrecy of proceedings, including denial of livestreaming, sealed evidence, and limited public access.(The Guardian, Energy Transfer Trial Monitoring)
• Leading human rights attorneys—such as Marty Garbus—denounced the trial as deeply unfair, questioning both legal procedure and justice for free speech.(The Guardian, Energy Transfer Trial Monitoring)

Greenpeace also plans to pursue an anti-SLAPP counteraction under Dutch law, arguing the U.S. case is a repressive misuse of the legal system.(Climate Change Litigation)

Legal and Societal Implications

First Amendment vs. Defamation Law

The case spotlights the boundary between protest rights and reputational harm claims. It raises urgent questions:

• How far can environmental groups go before entering liability zones?
• Does defamation law override constitutional protections of assembly and speech?

Strategic Risks for Advocacy

Legal scholars warn of a chilling effect: future activism—even if peaceful—could face similar legal jeopardy and high financial stakes.(E&E News by POLITICO, Hawaii Public Radio)

Appeals and Public Response

Greenpeace is appealing the ruling in North Dakota’s Supreme Court and pursuing international remedy. Legal experts suggest the U.S. verdict may ultimately be overturned or mitigated.(The Guardian)

Meanwhile, the case fuels debate over using courts for political or punitive ends rather than resolving genuine disputes. It also spotlights how jurisdictions without anti-SLAPP protections, like North Dakota, can become battlegrounds for activist litigation.(CBS News, The Guardian, Climate Change Litigation)

Conclusion: A Turning Point in Advocacy Law

Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace is more than a financial judgment—it’s a legal crossroad defining how environmental advocacy is regulated in the face of entrenched economic power.

As the legal process unfolds, stakeholders nationwide—from nonprofits to watchdogs and legislators—will be watching whether this verdict becomes precedent or warning, and whether the law will safeguard civic expression or favor corporate influence.