Greenpeace Pays for DAPL Protests, and It Might Cost Them More than Just Money

Indigenous water protectors lead a march against the Dakota Access Pipeline in Washington, D.C., on March 10, 2017. Justin Sullivan/ Getty Images. Courtesy of NRDC

In 2016, videos of protestors on Standing Rock Sioux reservation land being sprayed with tear gas in altercations with armed United States Army Corps of Engineers security personnel circulated the internet. Nine years later, Greenpeace is paying the price, to the tune of over 660 million dollars. 

During December 2015, the Army Corps of Engineers released the first draft of the Dakota Access Pipeline route that it intended to approve. The pipeline was proposed by Texas-based company Energy Transfer Partners, whose ambition it was to shuttle crude oil almost 1,200 miles from oil fields in North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa, landing at a distribution location in Illinois. The route traversed federal land and ran directly under a reservoir of the Missouri River known as Lake Oahe, a water source for the Sioux nation in the area. 

The path threatened to jeopardize the integrity of the public water system for the Sioux nation and others in the surrounding area, and produce a colossal amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The route also bulldozed through a slew of historical tribal sites that were protected under Sioux jurisdiction by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. On August 4, 2016, The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued the Army Corps for violating the National Historic Preservation Act, which prompted a countersuit days later for construction delays due to protesters who had begun camping out at the site. 

Outrage against encroaching bulldozers began with a small group of Sioux nation members who formed a human fence to stop the procession, but quickly escalated into something much more substantial. Other nations in the midwest and across the country traveled to support the protestors, and organizations including Greenpeace contributed funding for training protestors who joined their ranks. As a non-profit organization that champions global environmental causes of every variety, they published a comprehensive report with a breakdown of their stance on the company’s actions titled “Too Far Too Often,” that fell under scrutiny by company backers. They subsidized advertising campaigns to broadcast the level of damage that was being done to the land and sovereignty of the indigenous people around the pipeline’s track, but altogether the contributions still lacked the power to stifle Energy Transfer’s project. The pipeline finished construction in April 2017. 

The Greenpeace suit approaches from multiple angles with its accusations, including nine defamation claims which they were found guilty of during trial. The North Dakotan jury identified the claims that Energy Transfer’s image had been damaged to be truthful, ruling Greenpeace’s assertion that significant amounts of harm were done to indigenous peoples’ sites was false.  It was revealed after the trial that more than half of the jurors selected had ties to the fossil fuel industry and expressed a dislike for protesting as many had been personally affected by those preceding DAPL. However, their beliefs were not identified as impediments to their abilities to be impartial in deliberation. 

Energy Transfer has utilized the First Amendment to substantiate their position as well, building their case on the status of Greenpeace’s actions as not within the lawful description of protesting. Trey Cox, Energy Transfers’ lead lawyer, stated that the case was “a powerful affirmation,” of the amendment, upholding the standard that protesting must be peaceful in nature without infringing on the stipulated guidelines for acceptable protests. 

Greenpeace has stated that they will be appealing the verdict, but they face a difficult future if they are unable to succeed in appellate court. In previous iterations of the damage claims, the value assessed was stated at around $300 million, which is reportedly enough to put the group entirely out of business. The current status of damages as more than double where they stood during that time presents a much more demanding obstacle for Greenpeace to overcome. 

The results of the case have troubling implications for the interpretation of free speech, Greenpeace spokespeople and lawyers claim. They identify this decision as being a landmark case during a period in which free speech through the act of protest protected under the First Amendment is being violated, as they argue companies such as Energy Transfer are coercing their critics into submission. 

Some legal experts have established that the case falls under the umbrella of a SLAPP, also known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. This variety of lawsuit is conducted by major corporations with the ambition to quell opposition to their business practices, and engage their opponents in expensive litigation that bleeds them dry of money and depletes their resources. 

The case amplifies ongoing national conversations surrounding the enforcement of First Amendment rights in the act of protesting as more citizens within the United States face consequences for speaking out on topical political issues.