Closing arguments are set to take place on Monday in a significant lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer against Greenpeace. This case raises important questions about free speech and the rights of protesters, a point that has been underscored by the environmental group.
A jury comprising nine jurors and two alternates will be responsible for deliberating the case after hearing the closing arguments and the judge’s instructions. North Dakota District Court Judge James Gion reminded the jury at the trial’s start to make their decision based solely on the evidence presented to them.
Energy Transfer, along with its Dakota Access subsidiary, accuses Greenpeace of various charges including defamation, trespass, and nuisance. The company is seeking damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The legal actions arose from protests that occurred in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access Pipeline and its route near the Missouri River, which is close to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has long voiced concerns about the potential risk the pipeline poses to their water supply. Notably, the pipeline has been operational since mid-2017.
Attorney Trey Cox, representing the pipeline company, claimed that Greenpeace actively devised a plan to halt the construction of the pipeline by any means necessary. He alleged that Greenpeace funded outsiders to join the protests, provided blockade supplies, and even trained demonstrators to disrupt the construction.
Cox noted that a letter from leaders of Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA to Energy Transfer’s financial institutions included claims that the company desecrated burial grounds and other significant locations during construction—a statement that he asserted was defamatory. According to him, this “deceptive narrative” frightened away financial backers, causing the company to lose half its banking partners.
In defense, attorneys representing Greenpeace dismissed the allegations as baseless, claiming there was no substantial evidence of the organization’s involvement in the protests. They suggested that the letter was signed by numerous organizations from around the world, and that there was no proof that any banks had been influenced by it.
Greenpeace representatives maintain that this lawsuit represents a larger trend of corporations using legal avenues to silence criticism and that it poses a serious test for free speech and protest rights. However, Energy Transfer insists that the core issue lies in Greenpeace’s adherence to the law, rather than a matter of free expression.
