A high-stakes legal battle that could potentially bankrupt Greenpeace’s U.S. operations and reshape the landscape of far-Left activism is approaching its conclusion in an unlikely venue – a small courthouse in Mandan, North Dakota.
Closing arguments are scheduled to begin Monday in the $300 million lawsuit brought by Dallas-based pipeline company Energy Transfer against the notorious, radical environmental group. At issue are the massive protests and vandalism against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016-2017, which Energy Transfer claims were masterminded by Greenpeace.
“[Greenpeace] planned, organized and funded a game plan to stop construction” of the pipeline, “whatever the cost,” Trey Cox, an attorney for Energy Transfer, told the court. The company alleges Greenpeace paid outside protesters, provided supplies, organized trainings, and disseminated false information that “scared off lenders” and caused the company to lose “half its banks.”
The lawsuit represents a personal crusade for Energy Transfer CEO Kelcy Warren, a billionaire who donated $5 million to President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign. Warren has made his intentions clear in public statements.
“Everybody is afraid of these environmental groups and the fear that it may look wrong if you fight back with these people,” Warren told CNBC in 2017. “But what they did to us is wrong, and they’re going to pay for it.”
In his opening statements, Cox echoed this sentiment, telling the court: “[Greenpeace] didn’t think that there would ever be a day of reckoning, but that day of reckoning starts today.”
Greenpeace denies the allegations, and said there is no evidence for Energy Transfer’s claims and that they had “little or no involvement with the protests.”
“Beyond the impact that this lawsuit could have on the Greenpeace entities, one of the most worrisome things about the case is that it could establish dangerous new legal precedents that could hold any participant at protests responsible for the actions of others at those protests,” said Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor at Greenpeace US.
This is Energy Transfer’s second attempt to hold Greenpeace legally responsible for disruptive pipeline protests that are often filled with misinformation. In February 2019, a federal judge dismissed the company’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) lawsuit against the environmental group. Just one week later, Energy Transfer filed the current case at the state level, where tort laws give them a better chance.
Attorney Marty Garbus called it “one of the most important First Amendment cases in United States history.”
“It defines what peaceful protest is and what is not peaceful protest,” Garbus said. “If they get this kind of verdict they’ll cripple Greenpeace in the US.”
In North Dakota, where the oil industry dominates the economy, all of Morton County’s judges recused themselves from the case, citing acquaintance with the parties involved. Energy Transfer even donated $3 million to Mandan in 2019 for plaza and library improvements.
As nine jurors prepare to deliberate following Monday’s closing arguments, far-Left groups worldwide are watching nervously. An unfavorable ruling could not only financially devastate Greenpeace USA but also embolden other corporations to pursue similar legal actions against disruptive or destructive organizations.
An Energy Transfer spokesperson maintains the case “is not about free speech. It is about recovering damages for the harm Greenpeace caused our company by organising, funding, and encouraging the unlawful destruction of property and the dissemination of misinformation.”