Fossil fuel firm's $300m trial against Greenpeace to begin: ‘Weaponizing the judicial system'

A fossil fuel company's $300m lawsuit against Greenpeace opens in rural North Dakota on Monday, in a case that has been widely condemned by constitutional rights experts as baseless, bad faith litigation that threatens free speech.
Energy Transfer Partners, a Dallas-based oil and gas company worth almost $70bn, accuses Greenpeace of defamation and orchestrating criminal behavior by protesters at the Dakota Access pipeline (Dapl).
The anti-pipeline protests in 2016 and 2017 were organised by Standing Rock and other Sioux tribes and supported by more than 300 sovereign tribal nations, inspiring an international solidarity movement after Energy Transfer's private security unleashed attack dogs and pepper spray against nonviolent protesters.
Tens of thousands of people from across the country and world participated in the Dapl protests, and Greenpeace was among scores of non-profit groups that supported the Standing Rock tribe's opposition to the pipeline.
But Energy Transfer alleges in court filings that thousands of protestors were 'incited' to come to North Dakota thanks to a 'misinformation campaign' by Greenpeace.
The lawsuit has been widely denounced as a classic strategic lawsuit against public participation (Slapp) – a form of civil litigation increasingly deployed by corporations, politicians and wealthy individuals to deliberately wear down and silence critics including journalists, activists and watchdog groups.
The case threatens to bankrupt Greenpeace US, but the biggest impact could be a chilling effect on free speech and activism more broadly, according to environmental and civil liberty experts consulted by the Guardian. The five-week jury trial is scheduled to start on 24 February in Mandan, Morton county.
'This case is an emblematic example of a Slapp lawsuit – a way of weaponizing the legal system by wealthy and powerful people to silence their critics by dragging them through long, stressful, expensive litigation where winning is almost irrelevant,' said Kirk Herbertson, a New York based attorney and the US director for advocacy and campaigns for EarthRights International.
'This was not a Greenpeace event. They were not controlling what the people coming in were doing … there is nothing in the court filings that show Energy Transfer suffered actual harm due to actions by Greenpeace,' added Herbertson. 'This case feels more like a trophy hunt and an attempt to shut down free speech rather than an actual good faith attempt to seek remedies for harm.'
Energy Transfer first filed a Rico lawsuit in 2017 alleging federal racketeering and state tort claims. At the time Kelcy Warren, the company's billionaire founder and a major donor to Donald Trump, told CNBC that the company was 'greatly harmed' by Greenpeace.
'Everybody's afraid of these environmental groups and the fear that if you fight back it may look wrong … but what they did to us is wrong and they're going to pay for it,' said Warren. Warren has previously said environmental activists should be 'removed from the gene pool' and a Wall Street Journal profile of him detailed his relentless pursuit against green groups.
The federal racketeering case was dismissed on 14 February 2019, but seven days later Energy Transfer re-filed a virtually identical suit in North Dakota state court. Energy Transfer is suing three Greenpeace entities, claiming that they are a single organization rather than independent members of the Greenpeace network.
After six years and thousands of filings, this will be the first case under the new Trump administration to test what the first amendment will look like.
The lawsuit centres around nine statements made by Greenpeace during the Indigenous-led protests – none of which were original to the group, while three were taken from two letters written by another organization, including one with more than 500 signatories. Greenpeace argues that the statements are legitimate expressions of the first amendment protected right to speech.
Energy Transfer is also seeking to hold Greenpeace liable for actions taken by protesters that have no proven connection to the group.
'Greenpeace is a great big target. If you're trying to send a message to the world, go after Greenpeace,' said James Wheaton, a longtime journalism law professor at Stanford and UC Berkeley who founded the First Amendment Project. 'The pipeline lawsuit is a classic Slapp suit.
More than 330,000 individuals and 430+ organizations including Amnesty International, the American Federation of Teachers and Indigenous Environmental Network have signed an open letter denouncing the lawsuit as meritless – and an attempt to rewrite history by claiming that Greenpeace orchestrated what was an Indigenous-led movement.
The Standing Rock tribe has always asserted that the pipeline is a violation of its sovereignty as it crosses unceded historical and sacred Sioux territorial lands. The tribe wants a federal court to shut down the pipeline, and in October filed a lawsuit accusing the army corps of engineers of unlawfully allowing it to operate without an easement, a complete environmental assessment or sufficient emergency spill response plans.
'The tribe was 100% responsible and autonomous in their decision making and how they protested … this Energy Transfer lawsuit is aimed at creating a mortal blow through the legal system to a legacy non-profit that has done some of the most important environmental protection advocacy in US history,' said Scott Wilson Badenoch, a former chair of the American Bar Association's Environmental Justice Committee and veteran international trial monitor.
He added: 'It is utterly clear that Slapp suits are bad faith to their very core … the venue choice in this case is obviously part of what makes it a Slapp. The jury pool seems to be impossibly tainted … We've been involved with trial monitoring in places like Cambodia and Ecuador that were easier to monitor than this case in the United States of America.'
Badenoch is among a team of independent prominent civil rights attorneys and advocates who will monitor the trial amid growing concerns about judicial bias and violations of due process – and the threat posed by the case to free speech and the right to protest.
Judge James Gion was assigned to the case from another North Dakota jurisdiction after every single judge in Morton county recused themselves due to conflicts. Yet the judge has denied requests from Greenpeace's legal team to move the case to a different court due to concerns about potential jury bias. In 2024, 75% of voters in Morton county backed Trump. During his first term, Trump ordered an expedited review of the Dapl project after it was hit with obstacles by the Obama administration.
Another concern for the independent committee of observers is the size of the courtroom, which has very limited seating. Gion denied a motion from Greenpeace to livestream proceedings, ruling that this would interfere with Energy Transfer's 'right to a fair trial'. A key pretrial hearing on 4 February was held online without public access. Yet the court in Morton county has previously permitted Court TV to livestream homicide trials. A request by the trial monitoring committee for live streaming was also denied.
In recent weeks, mysterious rightwing mailers have arrived at the homes of local residents that Greenpeace alleges could further taint the jury pool. The mailers, made to look like a newspaper and dubbed 'Central ND News,' contain articles slanted against the pipeline protest or in favor of Energy Transfer, among stories about immigration and community news. None of the articles have named bylines. A publisher's note in a January edition similarly is not signed with a name but instead by 'Central ND Times Publishers.'
The stories within the mailer slant in favor of fossil fuels. One article in the January edition, next to a chart of gas prices around the state, is an interview of a former protestor who now says she believes the protestors created 'a local ecological disaster' and approves of the pipeline. A February edition features a business leader who claims the protests primarily caused 'division'.
Greenpeace sought to investigate whether the mailers were paid for, directly or indirectly, by Energy Transfer, but the judge denied its request for discovery on the issue. Warren, the Energy Transfer CEO, made a donation to a political action committee that then paid a publishing company affiliated with the group behind the mailer, ExxonKnews reported in December.
The judge has also allowed Energy Transfer to seal thousands of pages of evidence that appear to include details of the pipeline's safety history. The Standing Rock tribe's opposition to the pipeline is in part due to the risk posed by leaks in Lake Oahe, the primary source of water for the community. The company, which operates in 44 states, has a chequered environmental health and safety record, and was responsible for the worst pipeline fuel leaks in 2024.
On Tuesday, the judge denied all the motions for summary judgments filed by Greenpeace's attorneys in April 2024, and argued last June. Greenpeace is represented by Davis Wright Tremaine, a firm known for representing first amendment cases.
An Energy Transfer spokesperson said: 'Our lawsuit against Greenpeace is not about free speech as they are trying to claim. It is about them not following the law. We support the rights of all Americans to express their opinions and lawfully protest. However, when it is not done in accordance with our laws, we have a legal system to deal with that. Beyond that we will let our case speak for itself.'
Energy Transfer is represented by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher – the firm that represented Chevron against Steven Donziger, the environmental advocate sued by the firm after helping Amazonian communities in Ecuador win a landmark pollution case. 'This appears to be part of a broader strategy by the fossil fuel industry to weaponize the courts against activists and weaken organizations like Greenpeace in retaliation for their advocacy,' said Donziger, a member of the trial monitoring committee.
The monitoring team also includes Marty Garbus, who has represented numerous high-profile figures such as Leonard Peltier and Nelson Mandela; Indigenous rights lawyer Natali Segovia of the Water Protector Legal Collective; and Jeanne Mirer, president of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers.
Slapps and related legal tactics are being increasingly used globally to silence environmental and social justice activists, especially by fossil fuel corporations and the ultra-wealthy.
Warren previously issued a Slapp lawsuit against Texas lawmaker Beto O'Rourke after he critiqued Warren's massive profits during the 2021 Texas winter storm. (The case was dismissed.) Trump has filed almost 4,100 lawsuits over the past three decades, including seven defamation suits as a private citizen.
'We are generally used to seeing government as the biggest threat to free speech. But in an era of massive, massive wealth inequality, it's not that surprising to see a trend of using money to suppress speech and kind of control democratic processes,' said Shayana 'Shane' Kadidal, senior managing attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Earlier this month Greenpeace International filed a lawsuit in a Dutch court to recover 'all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of ET's back-to-back, meritless lawsuits'. This is the first test of a new European law aimed at curbing malicious lawsuits intended to silence journalists, rights activists and public watchdogs. In the US, two bipartisan efforts to pass federal anti-Slapp legislation have not gone anywhere.
'This lawsuit is an attempt to divide the movement, but it has not been successful,' said Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace's senior legal advisor. 'Energy Transfer and the fossil fuel industry do not understand the difference between entities and movements. You can't bankrupt the movement. You can't silence the movement. There will be a backlash and a price to pay when you pursue these kinds of tactics. People power is more powerful.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Times

2 hours ago

• Times

Leaving oil and gas in the ground was always a pipe dream

Just call me Mystic Mac. As I forecast in this space earlier this month, the UK has finally opened the door to the development of the Rosebank oilfield off Shetland and the Jackdaw gas field off Aberdeen. Ed Miliband, the net zero secretary, famously said that drilling in these two modest reserves would constitute 'climate vandalism'. Well, it looks like he will shortly have to get his spray paint out and daub 'Just Start Oil' on the door of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. To be honest, it didn't take supernatural foresight to predict that these totemic fields would ultimately get the go-ahead. They were given licences by the last government. Production was halted only by a bizarre judgment by the Court of Session in Edinburgh. In January Lord Ericht ruled in favour of the climate activists, Uplift and Greenpeace, who argued that the UK government hadn't carried out a full environmental impact assessment of the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels downstream. It had merely provided an assessment of the carbon dioxide from the process of extracting it and piping it ashore. New methods of extraction can and are producing significant reductions in producer emissions. But the UK government had not formally included an assessment of the downstream emissions since it was deemed self-evident that burning hydrocarbons produces greenhouse gases. What did the court expect? That it would be used to oil bicycle chains and fill balloons? Shell says that Jackdaw alone would produce enough gas to heat 1.4 million households. The environmental and health impact on those households of withdrawing their main source of heating was not, of course, considered in this pettifogging ruling — because that would have required an ounce of common sense. Nor did the court recognise that the gas, which would have to be imported to fuel those domestic boilers if Jackdaw were stoppered, might produce more emissions than using our domestic supply. Yet it should be patently obvious that shipping liquefied natural gas 3,000 miles from America by tanker is more profligate in emissions than using what's produced by extraction from our backyard. The court was tacitly endorsing the perverse logic of the Scottish government and lobbyists such as Greenpeace that, in some morally inexplicable way, imported oil and gas is good while ours is bad. But Sir Keir Starmer was never going to start shutting down an industry that generates about £25 billion a year, according to Offshore Energy UK, and supports around 100,000 jobs. Pointlessly sacrificing these new fields would only have indicated to the few companies still operating in the region that the government is hell bent on closing down the North Sea prematurely. The new rules announced last week by Michael Shanks, the energy minister, will allow further development of the Cambo and Clair fields, expansion of which had also been placed on hold following the January court ruling. This whole episode served only to showcase the absurdity of what is being called the managerial 'lanyard class's' thinking about energy. The Treasury is not stupid and was never going to endorse an exercise in performative self-harm. Nor was No 10. 'Keeping it in the ground', as Patrick Harvie used to advocate, was not what Labour meant by a rational and measured transition to renewable energy. The UK depends on oil and gas for 75 per cent of its energy usage. So the UK government has rejigged the approval process to include a statement of the bleedin' obvious — viz, that burning oil and gas produces emissions. Industry sources believe, rightly, that by submitting this new and more politically correct prospectus, they will be able to go ahead. That is, if firms like Equinor haven't given up in disgust. They're already being hit by a 78 per cent profits tax on North Sea oil, which makes you wonder why they bother. It's not as if the oil price is exactly soaring right now, despite the nasty business in the Strait of Hormuz. Companies such as Harbour Energy have given up and pulled out. Norwegian-owned Equinor, in Rosebank, is hanging on, presumably in the hope that it will be well placed to bid for future wind farm development. It installed the first commercially viable floating wind farm, Hywind, off Peterhead. All of which underlines the lamentable state of our whole approach to energy. Oil companies, demonised by the environmental lobby, happen to possess the very skills and technology which will be needed if and when the green energy bonanza finally materialises. Greenpeace seems to think the wind energy in the North Sea can be harnessed by Native American dream-catchers and transmitted into people's homes by daisy chains. In fact it requires heavy-duty platforms, implanted in turbulent waters, to support wind turbines the size of the Eiffel Tower — and also the laying of undersea cables to get it to the grid (if it can be upgraded in time). This is not very different, technologically, from what fossil fuel companies have been doing for the past 50 years. Rosebank and Jackdaw are not going to solve the UK's strategic energy deficit. They are rather modest operations in a North Sea field that is in steep and irrevocable decline. The glory days are over. But we still need whatever they can provide, if only to ensure a measure of energy security and help reduce costly imports. One of the more specious arguments currently deployed by opponents of Rosebank and Jackdaw is that their hydrocarbons will be exported and are therefore of no use here. Not so: gas goes directly to the UK. Oil is mostly exported to Rotterdam for refining, but it comes back as petrol and other products. It isn't refined here because we've closed nearly all our own refineries, such as Grangemouth, because of our perverse belief that it is morally preferable to import hydrocarbons. Abandoning the North Sea won't bring forward net zero by a single day. It will merely increase our dependency on authoritarian governments in the Middle East, make energy bills even more unaffordable, and deprive the UK of billions in oil revenues to spend on the NHS. Predictably, the Scottish government has not responded to the energy U-turn. The SNP is still under the sway of environmental cretinism. No wonder Fergus Ewing, a voice of energy sanity, has decided to walk. Perhaps Ed Miliband may be following him in the not-too-distant future.

Daily Mirror

15 hours ago

• Daily Mirror

Prince Harry's one major wish as he 'regrets royal rift' after fall out

A royal expert says Prince Harry 'wishes he'd done things differently' as his strained relationships with Prince William and King Charles show little sign of improving Prince Harry recently revealed he "would love a reconciliation" with his UK-based royal relatives, but a royal expert says despite him likely having regrets, it's not looking likely any time soon. The younger royal brother spoke out after losing his High Court battle over state security for his family while in the UK, and said his father, King Charles, "won't speak to me because of this security stuff". Former royal editor Duncan Larcombe, tells the Mirror that he has no doubt Harry wishes "he'd done thing differently", as his with Prince William and the King appear a very long way from being resolved. ‌ ‌ "Harry is a sensitive soul and always wore his heart on his sleeve, so whether he'd admit it publicly or not, I'm sure he's full of regrets and wishes he'd done things differently,' says Duncan, author of Prince Harry: The Inside Story. Duncan continues, "With Trooping the Colour and Father's Day falling on the same weekend, it was bound to make him look back at the happy relationships he once had with his brother and dad, and I'm sure he'd love to be able to rebuild those." Last month, Harry lost his bid to overturn the decision to deny him and Meghan Markle, and their children, state-funded, high level security provided for senior royals while in the UK. As a result, he said he 'couldn't see a world ' in which he would be able to bring Meghan and the children back to his homeland, where he and William grew up. 'By saying he can't bring them here because of the court ruling, Harry has nailed his colours to the mast,' says Duncan. ‌ "Meghan is probably quite reluctant to come to the UK anyway because they'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to realise just how much criticism they've had for their betrayals and truth bombs. But more importantly, there are real and genuine threats.' Duncan says the threats are most likely from "lunatics and radical protestors" who might want to make a name for themselves. And the threat naturally extends to Harry and Meghan children, Archie, six, and Lilibet, four, which makes any trip to the UK incredibly difficult without state-level security, he adds. "At big royal events, the security you actually see is the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of undercover officers and agents working, too,' he says. 'Without the official support and security, Harry and Meghan are left with two or three bodyguards who are pretty blind to what the potential threats are."

Belfast Telegraph

a day ago

• Belfast Telegraph

‘A real lady' – DUP MLA pays tribute as mother of former First Minister Arlene Foster dies

Julia Georgina (Georgie) Kelly passed away peacefully in hospital yesterday. She was aged in her early 90s. Originally from Sandy Row in Belfast, Mrs Kelly spent most of her life in Lisnaskea, Co Fermanagh. Her husband John Kelly, who survived an IRA murder bid, passed away suddenly in 2011. A death notice described Mrs Kelly as 'a dearly beloved wife', 'dear mother' and "a loving grandmother' to her 10 grandchildren and nine great grandchildren. It said her passing was 'deeply regretted by her sorrowing family'. 'She was the constant within the family, her quiet disposition yet steely strength ensured her family had love and support and stability through very challenging times' DUP MLA Deborah Erskine said Mrs Kelly was a woman of strong faith. The Fermanagh-South Tyrone MLA said: 'Mrs Kelly was a well loved and respected member of the community. "In every sense of the word, she was a real lady. A woman who cared a lot about her family and the community. "She was so proud of Arlene and her achievements politically. "Importantly Mrs Kelly was a woman of strong faith, courage and conviction - something which was held dear throughout her life and relied upon in many of the dark times she faced, while facing the danger of terrorism on the border daily.' Fermanagh-based victims group SEFF also paid tribute to Mrs Kelly. The group said: 'Family meant so much to her and she was incredibly proud of all of their achievements, all her children - and of course Arlene's various political milestones, but also she took considerable interest in her grandchildren's lives and others throughout the family circle - she was very much understood as the matriarch.' The group referred to the attempted murder of Mr Kelly, who survived being shot in the head by the IRA in 1979. The tribute also recalled how, as a teenager, Mrs Foster's school bus was bombed by the IRA in an attempt to kill the driver, who was in the UDR. SEFF added: 'Mrs Kelly did not have a simple life, she had much to withstand including supporting her husband and family when Provisional IRA terrorists sought to murder him at their home outside Rosslea, and also when Arlene survived the school bus bomb along with other pupils and bus driver Ernie Wilson. 'She was the constant within the family, her quiet disposition yet steely strength ensured her family had love and support and stability through very challenging times. 'For her recent 90th birthday celebrations Mrs Kelly selflessly decided she didn't want any gifts but instead invited anyone wishing to mark it to instead make a donation which would then be given to SEFF. This was a measure of her thoughtfulness and generosity.' In a 2016 interview with the Belfast Telegraph, shortly after Mrs Foster became First Minister, Mrs Kelly spoke of her pride. She said her daughter exhibited leadership skills at a young age. In the same article, Mrs Foster paid tribute to her mother's steady guidance. She said: 'Mum's always been very level-headed and doesn't get overly excited about things - I know what you're going to say: so where do you get your temper from then? Well, I'm very quick like my father. Mum's very steady and she was always there. Looking back, you appreciate that. "When my father was shot, mum internalised her fears and concerns at the time, but her hair went white, almost overnight. And she was just around my age at the time. She was never one for crying and I don't remember tears, though, apart from when we lost dad in 2011." She added: "Mum and dad were married for 54 years, so obviously it was an awful wrench for her when he died suddenly, and very difficult to get over. She's lucky to have very good friends and three of us close to her, and she gets out and about to her clubs and so on. "She's very strong and she was a marvellous support to me - as was my late mother-in-law'. Mrs Kelly's funeral will leave her home on Monday for a service in Holy Trinity Parish Church, Lisnaskea, followed by interment in St Mark's churchyard, Aghadrumsee.