Pipeline Co’s Lawsuit Threatens Organisation’s Future: Greenpeace
The banner of Greenpeace USA's X account
A Texas pipeline company’s lawsuit against Greenpeace was all set to go to trial in the United States’ North Dakota on Monday, February 24. The lawsuit accuses Greenpeace of defamation, disruptions, and attacks during protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace argues that the case threatens free speech rights and its future as an environmental advocacy organization.
The lawsuit originates from protests that took place in 2016 and 2017 regarding the oil pipeline’s planned crossing of the Missouri River, which is upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has long contended that the pipeline poses a risk to its water supply. Thousands protested against the project, resulting in hundreds of arrests.
Energy Transfer, along with its subsidiary Dakota Access, claims that Greenpeace attempted to delay the pipeline’s construction, defamed the companies involved, and coordinated trespassing, vandalism, and violence among the protesters. The lawsuit seeks millions of dollars in damages.
The Dakota Access Pipeline was completed in June 2017 and has been transporting oil since then. Greenpeace International argues that it should not be included in the lawsuit because it operates outside the US and its employees were not involved in the North Dakota protests. Greenpeace USA contends that the plaintiffs have not substantiated their claims since the protests occurred.
Earlier this month, a judge denied Greenpeace’s motions to dismiss or limit parts of the case.
Greenpeace’s position
Greenpeace’s representatives, who have been advocating for over 50 years, assert that Energy Transfer aims to silence critics of the oil industry. Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace USA, stated that the trial is a crucial test for the future of the First Amendment, particularly regarding freedom of speech and peaceful protest. She warned that a negative ruling could jeopardize rights and freedoms for everyone, including journalists and protesters.
Greenpeace USA provided support for “nonviolent, direct-action training” during the protests, according to senior legal adviser Deepa Padmanabha. She noted that Energy Transfer’s argument implies that anyone involved in training at a protest should be held accountable for the actions of all participants, which could deter people from engaging in protests.
In response, Greenpeace International has filed an anti-intimidation lawsuit in Amsterdam against Energy Transfer, claiming the company acted wrongfully and should pay for costs and damages related to its “meritless” litigation.
What does Energy Transfer state?
Energy Transfer maintains that the lawsuit is about Greenpeace not adhering to the law, not about free speech. Vicki Granado, a spokesperson for the company, stated that they support the rights of Americans to express their opinions and protest lawfully. However, she emphasized that when protests do not comply with the law, there is a legal system to address those issues.
Energy Transfer previously filed a similar case in federal court in 2017, which was dismissed by a judge in 2019. Following that, the company initiated the state court lawsuit that is now going to trial.
Founded in 1996 with just 20 employees and 200 miles of natural gas pipelines, Energy Transfer has grown significantly. Today, the company employs 11,000 people and operates over 125,000 miles of pipelines and related facilities.
