A North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace to pay $660 million to pipeline giant Energy Transfer, raising concerns that fossil fuel companies may increasingly use the courts to silence environmental protests.
In short:
- Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace over its role in the Dakota Access pipeline protests, and a jury found the organization liable for defamation and other claims.
- Legal experts say the verdict could deter future protest efforts by nonprofits and activists, especially as President Trump promotes fossil fuel expansion.
- Greenpeace plans to appeal, citing concerns about local industry ties and First Amendment protections.
Key quote:
“If companies can sue critics, advocates, and protesters into oblivion for their speech and the unlawful acts of third parties, then no one will feel safe protesting corporate malfeasance.”
— Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney, American Civil Liberties Union
Why this matters:
Over the past five years, as climate activists have stepped up opposition to oil and gas pipelines, petrochemical plants, and export terminals, more than two dozen states have passed laws enhancing penalties for interfering with “critical infrastructure.” Legal experts and civil liberties advocates say many of these laws were shaped — sometimes even written — by the fossil fuel industry itself. The result is a legal environment where nonviolent direct action can carry years-long prison sentences and staggering fines, even when no property damage or injury occurs.
Environmental groups warn that this shift threatens more than just individual demonstrators — it undermines the ability of communities to push back against projects that often pose health risks to local residents, particularly in low-income and Indigenous areas. As corporate lawsuits and state policies make it harder to organize, critics say these tactics erode basic democratic norms, suppress dissent, and shift power further away from the public and toward industry.
Read more:
