Greenpeace Faces US Court Judgment in Energy Transfer SLAPP Suit, Appeals Planned
Greenpeace International and its US branches are preparing to appeal a North Dakota court judgment requiring them to pay US$345 million to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. The ruling stems from a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) filed by Energy Transfer in response to Greenpeace’s protests against the pipeline’s construction. The case highlights the growing trend of corporations using legal action to stifle environmental activism and dissent, raising concerns about the future of free speech and peaceful protest.
The judgment, delivered on February 27, 2026, found Greenpeace liable for damages related to claims of trespass, conspiracy, and interference with Energy Transfer’s business operations. Energy Transfer alleged that Greenpeace’s actions, including the dissemination of information and organization of protests, incited illegal activities by third parties that damaged the company’s property, and reputation. Greenpeace vehemently denies these claims, arguing that their activities were lawful and protected by the First Amendment.
The Dakota Access Pipeline and Initial Protests
The Dakota Access Pipeline, completed in 2017, transports crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois. Its construction sparked widespread protests led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and their allies, who argued that the pipeline threatened their water supply and sacred sites. Greenpeace actively supported these protests, providing resources and amplifying the voices of Indigenous activists. The protests gained international attention, with clashes between protesters and law enforcement resulting in numerous arrests and injuries.
Energy Transfer’s lawsuit against Greenpeace followed the release of a report by the company alleging that the environmental organization engaged in a coordinated campaign to sabotage the pipeline project. The lawsuit accused Greenpeace of directing and encouraging illegal activities, including property damage and threats against Energy Transfer employees. Greenpeace countered that the lawsuit was a blatant attempt to silence criticism and intimidate activists.
SLAPP Suits and Their Impact on Activism
SLAPP suits, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, are legal actions filed against individuals or organizations for exercising their First Amendment rights. These lawsuits are often meritless but are designed to intimidate and silence critics by forcing them to expend significant resources on legal defense. Greenpeace International has described the Energy Transfer lawsuit as a classic example of a SLAPP suit, intended to chill free speech and discourage environmental activism.
According to the Public Participation Project, SLAPP suits are increasingly being used by corporations to suppress dissent and protect their profits. These lawsuits can have a devastating impact on individuals and organizations, even if they ultimately prevail in court. The cost of legal defense can be crippling, and the stress and uncertainty associated with litigation can take a heavy toll.
Greenpeace’s Response and Planned Appeal
Greenpeace International has announced its intention to seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the North Dakota court’s decision to the North Dakota Supreme Court. In a press release issued on February 27, 2026, Greenpeace stated that it would “vigorously defend its right to speak out against environmental injustice and corporate wrongdoing.” The organization argues that the court’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent that could have far-reaching implications for environmental activism.
“This ruling is a clear attempt to silence Greenpeace and discourage others from speaking out against powerful corporations,” said a Greenpeace spokesperson. “We will not be intimidated. We will continue to fight for a sustainable future, and we will continue to hold corporations accountable for their actions.”
Broader Implications for Environmental Activism
The Energy Transfer lawsuit and the subsequent court judgment have raised concerns among environmental activists and legal experts about the increasing use of legal tactics to suppress dissent. Critics argue that SLAPP suits create a chilling effect on free speech and make it more tricky for individuals and organizations to hold corporations accountable for environmental damage.
The case also highlights the challenges faced by environmental activists in challenging powerful corporate interests. Energy Transfer is a major player in the oil and gas industry, with significant financial resources and political influence. Greenpeace, although a well-known and respected organization, is significantly smaller and less well-funded.
Greenpeace’s Ongoing Work
Despite the legal challenges, Greenpeace continues its work on a variety of environmental issues around the world. Recent press releases from the organization detail concerns regarding strikes on Iran and independent analysis of deep sea mining proposals. Greenpeace’s core mission remains the protection of the natural world and the promotion of peace, justice, and sustainability. The organization relies on donations from individuals and foundations to fund its campaigns and advocacy efforts.
Greenpeace’s international network operates through direct, non-violent action, aiming to protect the planet’s biodiversity, prevent pollution of Earth’s oceans, land, air and fresh water, end the threat of nuclear weapons and promote peace. The organization also advocates for sustainable solutions to environmental problems, such as renewable energy and sustainable agriculture.
Media Access and Resources
Greenpeace International provides a 24/7 hotline for media inquiries at +31 (0)20 718 2470 or via email at [email protected]. For EU-focused requests, the European Unit Press Desk can be reached at +32 (0)2 274 1911 or [email protected]. High-resolution photos and broadcast-ready video are available through the Media Library at +31 (0)20 718 2115 or [email protected], open Monday-Friday, 09.30-17.00 CET.
The organization’s commitment to transparency is evident in its readily available press releases and media resources, allowing journalists and the public to stay informed about its activities and campaigns.
The appeal of the US$345 million judgment is expected to be a closely watched case, with implications for the future of environmental activism and the balance between corporate interests and the right to protest. The outcome could set a precedent for similar cases and shape the legal landscape for environmental advocacy for years to approach.
Next Steps: Greenpeace is currently preparing its legal arguments for the appeal and expects to file its brief with the North Dakota Supreme Court in the coming months. Further updates on the case will be available on the Greenpeace International website.
What are your thoughts on the use of SLAPP suits against environmental activists? Share your comments below and join the conversation.
Worth a look