Greenpeace loss will embolden big oil and gas to pursue protesters: ‘No one will feel safe'
A pipeline company's victory in court over Greenpeace, and the huge damages it now faces, will encourage other oil and gas companies to legally pursue environmental protesters at a time when Donald Trump's energy agenda is in ascendancy, experts have warned.
On Wednesday a North Dakota jury ruled that three Greenpeace entities collectively must pay Energy Transfer, which was co-founded by a prominent Trump donor, more than $660m, deciding that the organizations were liable for defamation and other claims after a five-week trial in Mandan, near where the Dakota Access pipeline protests occurred in 2016 and 2017.
'This verdict will embolden other energy companies to take legal action against protesters who physically block their projects,' said Michael Gerrard, the founder and faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.
'It will chill those kinds of protests; whether the chilling goes beyond that remains to be seen. It won't inhibit litigation against fossil fuel projects; we will surely see more of those as the Trump administration advances its 'drill, baby, drill' agenda.'
Kevin Cramer, the US senator from North Dakota, cheered Wednesday's massive judgement against Greenpeace over the pipeline protests in his state, congratulating the energy company who sued the environmental group for its big win.
Justice was served, he said. 'They can think twice now about doing it again,' he said of Greenpeace and other environmental groups who protested the Dakota Access pipeline.
Brian Hauss, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said that the lawsuit serves as a 'tax on speech,' one that makes it too expensive to go against 'litigious, deep-pocketed corporations'.
'If companies can sue critics, advocates and protesters into oblivion for their speech and the unlawful acts of third parties, then no one will feel safe protesting corporate malfeasance,' Hauss said.
In the days since the ruling was issued, environmental groups and protest movements have reacted with shock and dismay, warning that its impact stretches far beyond any individual organization.
Some legal experts were surprised the case even made it before a jury. Similar claims often get tossed out over First Amendment concerns or because many states prevent so-called Slapp suits (strategic lawsuits against public participation). North Dakota doesn't have an anti-Slapp law.
Greenpeace's goals – such as protecting the climate and preserving oceans – won't change, said Sushma Raman, the interim executive director of Greenpeace USA. But 'it's really going to be a question of capacity and prioritization, which happens in any organization that is facing an existential threat of this kind,' Raman said.
'Ultimately, this isn't about the money for them,' Raman said of Energy Transfer. 'It's really about sending a message, and it's trying to silence an organization that they feel is a thorn in their side.'
Energy Transfer's CEO, Kelcy Warren, has donated millions to pro-Trump groups and given directly to the president's campaigns over the years. He has made a mission of going after pipeline opponents, including Greenpeace, filing several lawsuits to that end.
Some conservatives have celebrated his approach. Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, said it was 'great news!' that the verdict could bankrupt Greenpeace. Erick Erickson, a conservative talkshow host, said Warren was his hero. 'I'm a longtime shareholder of Energy Transfer and his campaign to destroy Greenpeace has been awesome to behold. God bless him,' Erickson wrote on X.
Shayana 'Shane' Kadidal, a senior managing attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, called to mind economic boycotts during the US civil rights movement that inflicted damage on white-owned businesses, and how those businesses retaliated with civil lawsuits against groups such as the NAACP, trying to frame their activism as a conspiracy.
'Billionaire oligarchs like Elon Musk and Energy Transfer's Kelcy Warren now pose one of the most significant risks to free speech globally,' Kadidal said.
Greenpeace began in the 1970s with a campaign led by Canadian activists to block nuclear weapons testing on an Alaskan island, its roots based in direct action. US offshoots grew throughout that decade. It is headquartered in the Netherlands, where it has filed an anti-Slapp lawsuit against Energy Transfer.
It has said it got involved in the Dakota Access protests because the tribe, the Standing Rock Sioux, asked for its help. The organization has a policy of only getting involved in Indigenous-led movements if specifically asked, the New York Times reported.
Waniya Locke, of Standing Rock Grassroots, said the verdict 'attempts to erase Indigenous leadership from Standing Rock's history' and part of a 'coordinated attack on communities organizing to protect their water and futures from big oil'.
The Greenpeace case isn't the only recent example of a heightened legal attack on free speech. Protesters on US college campuses have been met with disciplinary actions for supporting Palestinian human rights, the most extreme example involving the push to deport a former Columbia student, Mahmoud Khalil. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has sued his critics.
The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law has tracked a rise in anti-protest bills since 2017, corresponding with major protest movements including actions against pipelines, on college campuses, for teachers and for racial justice. These proposals include 'extreme' penalties for protest-related offenses like trespassing near a pipeline, the center notes in its analysis. They also call for expanded liability for organizations or individuals that aren't directly involved in protests. 'Nonprofits, religious groups, and others will be much more reluctant to support or organize protected protests if they face possible penalties for the unlawful actions of others,' the center said in its analysis.
The verdict is not the end for this case – Greenpeace has said it will appeal to the North Dakota supreme court. Legal experts believe the organization has a better shot on appeal, citing the jury's ties to the oil and gas industry and the broad disapproval of the protest among local residents.
In the defeat, there has also been resolve.
'You can't sue or bankrupt a movement,' Raman said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
39 minutes ago
- NBC News
Republican party divisions emerge following U.S. strikes on Iran
Divisions are showing among Republican lawmakers following President Trump's decision to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky denounced the decision and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia also spoke out. Trump maintained support from lawmakers, including Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
An Iranian attack on US military bases could draw the UK into the conflict
When I got to Chequers on Sunday morning the prime minister had clearly been up for most of the night and hitting the phones all morning with calls to fellow leaders in Europe and the Middle East as he and others scrambled to try to contain a very dangerous situation. His primary message on Sunday was to try to reassure the public that the UK government was working to stabilise the region as best it could and press for a return to diplomacy. But what struck me in our short interview was not what he did say but what he didn't - what he couldn't - say about the US strikes. It was clear from his swerve on the question of whether the UK supported the strikes that the prime minister neither wanted to endorse US strikes nor overtly criticise President Trump. Instead, his was a form of words - repeated later in a joint statement of the E3 (the UK, Germany and France) to acknowledge the US strikes and reiterate where they can agree: the need to prevent Iran having a nuclear weapon. He also didn't want to engage in the very obvious observation that President Trump simply isn't listening to Sir Keir Starmer or other allies, who had been very publicly pressing for de-escalation all week, from the G7 summit in Canada to this weekend as European countries convened talks in Geneva with Iran. 4:00 It was only five days ago that the prime minister told me he didn't think a US attack was imminent when I asked him what was going on following President Trump's abrupt decision to quit the G7 early and convene his security council at the White House. When I asked him if he felt foolish or frustrated that Trump had done that and didn't seem to be listening, he told me it was a "fast moving situation" with a "huge amount of discussions in the days since the G7" and said he was intensely pressing his consistent position of de-escalation. What else really could he say? He has calculated that criticising Trump goes against UK interests and has no other option but to press for a diplomatic solution and work with other leaders to achieve that aim. 1:15 Before these strikes, Tehran was clear it would not enter negotiations until Israel stopped firing missiles into Iran - something Israel is still saying on Sunday evening it is not prepared to do. The US has been briefing that one of the reasons it took action was because it did not think the Iranians were taking the talks convened by the Europeans in Geneva seriously enough. It is hard now to see how these strikes will not serve but to deepen the conflict in the Middle East and the mood in government is bleak. Iran will probably conclude that continuing to strike only Israel in light of the US attacks - the first airstrikes ever by the US on Iran - is a response that will make the regime seem weak. 2:38 But escalation could draw the UK into a wider conflict it does not want. If Iran struck US assets, it could trigger article five of NATO (an attack on one is an attack on all) and draw the UK into military action. If Iran chose to attack the US via proxies, then UK bases and assets could be under threat. The prime minister was at pains to stress on Sunday that the UK had not been involved in these strikes. Meanwhile, the UK-controlled airbase on Diego Garcia was not used to launch the US attacks, with B-2 bombers deployed from Guam instead. There was no request to use the Diego Garcia base, the president moving unilaterally, underlining his disinterest in what the UK has to say. The world is waiting nervously to see how Iran might respond, as the PM moves more military assets to the region while simultaneously hitting the phones.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Washington tells Trump after Iran strikes: No more ‘forever war'
The trauma of America's post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan was evident in Washington on Sunday as Americans reckoned with the implications of Donald Trump's decision to launch strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. Across the political spectrum, varying factions unified under the banner of opposition to the kind of nation-building ground assault that defined America's two wars launched by the Bush administration. It is the only area of agreement between a faction of progressives and pro-Trump paleoconservatives who opposed the U.S. becoming involved in what up until now had been an Israeli military campaign and their opponents, a waning neoconservative faction in Washington which has called for further escalation in the form of strikes against other facilities and targeted assassinations of Iranian political and military leadership. Sunday morning, the Trump administration publicly leaned towards the former group. Three top administration officials, Trump's vice president, Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, spoke to journalists and urged Iranian leaders to choose against responding to the U.S. strike. Pledging that the U.S. was not seeking to topple Iran's government, the trio left open an off-ramp as Vance claimed: 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' But both Democrats and Republican opponents of military force against Iran were smarting after Saturday night's attacks, and many cast doubt on the U.S.'s ability to avoid what Senator Jim Risch, one of the administration's defenders, said would be another 'forever war'. A number of Democrats urged more of their party to sign on to a resolution aimed at reining in the president's war powers. The resolution's lone Republican supporter, Rep. Thomas Massie, called on his party to do the same while condemning the influence of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, in a pair of interviews. 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER,' wrote Trump on Truth Social, in a lengthy post against Massie. But for Democrats, the bombing of Iran represented an issue where common ground could be found. 'This is a defining moment for the Democratic party. We need to stand against war with Iran,' warned one of the resolution's co-sponsors, Rep. Ro Khanna. Rep. Adam Smith, one of the party's more centrist members who voted for the Iraq War in 2002, released a lengthy statement on Saturday for Trump's refusal to seek congressional authorization for the strikes. He also warned against the kind of Iraq-style intervention he once supported: 'The path that the President has chosen risks unleashing a wider war in the region that is both incredibly unpredictable and treacherous.' The effort to rein in Trump's military powers gained Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's support on Saturday as well. A strong supporter of Israel, Schumer nonetheless accused the administration of making 'erratic threats' and having 'no strategy'. 'The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now increased,' added the Senate Democratic leader. On the right, conservative supporters of the president who opposed Israel's sudden military strikes — which occurred during the first U.S-Iran talks in years — were furious and worried about the future of the White House's domestic agenda. Former congressman Matt Gaetz, speaking with . Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on his OANN show, accused Israel of seeking 'regime change' in Iran. He also tore into the Netanyahu government, accusing the prime minister of trying to avoid his own electoral defeat by getting the U.S. involved in his war and attacked Israel over the alleged existence of its own nuclear weapons program. Steve Bannon, writing on Gettr, derided Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for claiming Sunday that the U.S. still sought peace with Iran. 'Guys, please run this by [Benjamin] Netanyahu,' he quipped. Curt Mills, executive director of the American Conservative, warned that it was now going to be extremely difficult for Trump to back the U.S. out of what it had started. 'Goal posts. Instantly moved,' Mills wrote as he reacted to calls for further strikes reportedly made on Israeli media. 'They're going to keep asking Trump to do much more, forever, until he or another American president Says No.' 'The goal posts will be moved until morale collapses,' he added: 'Every drop of juice is squeezed from Trump's political capital.' Even those who defended the administration's involvement in the Israeli military campaign were hesitant to endorse the kind of foreign military footprint that America sustained during the so-called War on Terror. Risch, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praised the president's 'decisive action' in his own statement after previously writing in May that the administration should insist on 'full dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program', including civilian enrichment, during now-scuttled negotiations. 'This is Israel's war not our war,' the senator said. 'This is not the start of a forever war. There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran.'
