Weaponization of the legal system

Greenpeace Verdict Stems From “Weaponization of the Legal System,” Advocates Say

If it’s upheld, the environmental group could be on the hook for $660 million.

Marina Dunbar

The verdict against the environmental group Greenpeace finding it liable for huge damages to a pipeline company over protests has been described by advocacy groups as a “weaponization of the legal system” and an “assault” on free speech and protest rights.

A North Dakota jury decided on Wednesday that Greenpeace will have to pay at least $660 million to the pipeline company Energy Transfer, and is liable for defamation and other claims over protests in 2016 and 2017.

Rebecca Brown, the president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law issued a statement highlighting the threat the decision poses to free speech and the right to protest. She says the verdict is “a calculated attack on the sovereign rights of the Standing Rock Sioux and all indigenous peoples defending their land and water. This case is a textbook example of corporate weaponization of the legal system to silence protest and intimidate communities.”

ClientEarth, a nonprofit and partner to Greenpeace, said that the verdict highlighted the growing trend of big polluters using the legal system to intimidate and silence critics and that corporations want to send the message that “no organization that challenges the polluting industries is safe” in a statement on social media.

Energy Transfer was “frivolously alleging defamation and seeking money damages, designed to shut down all voice supporting Standing Rock,” Janet Alkire, the tribal chair for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said in a statement.

“The case is an attempt to silence our Tribe about the truth of what happened at Standing Rock, and the threat posed by DAPL to our land, our water and our people. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not be silenced,” the statement said.

Energy Transfer counsel during the case, Trey Cox, said that the verdict showed that Greenpeace’s actions had been unlawful. “It is also a day of celebration for the constitution, the state of North Dakota and Energy Transfer,” he said following the decision.

Kevin Cramer, a Republican senator for North Dakota, also celebrated the verdict on social media, writing in a post on X: “Today, justice has been done with Greenpeace and its radical environmentalist buddies who encouraged this destructive behavior during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests with their defamatory and false claims about the pipeline.”

But experts and nonprofit groups expressed alarm over the verdict and what it means for constitutional rights in the US.

EarthRights, another non-governmental, nonprofit group, says that the Dakota Access pipeline protests were “overwhelmingly peaceful” and that the organization “proudly joins Greenpeace USA in speaking up against brazen legal attacks and ensuring that the environmental movement only continues to grow stronger, despite the appalling result in North Dakota.”

The case is being described by legal experts as a classic example of a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation)—a form of civil litigation increasingly deployed by corporations, politicians, and wealthy individuals to deliberately wear down and silence critics including journalists, activists, and watchdog groups. These cases often result in significant legal costs for the defendants, which is viewed as “a win” for the suing entity even if they don’t win the lawsuit.

The international environmental organization 350.org called the verdict against Greenpeace a “devastating legal ruling.”

“This ruling is a blatant attempt to silence dissent and crush the power of grassroots activism,” the group said in a statement. “It sends a dangerous message: that fossil fuel giants can weaponize the courts to silence those who challenge the destruction of our planet.”

They also warn that the fossil fuel industry is increasingly turning to “lawfare”—the use of courts and legal action as weapons of intimidation.

Brice Böhmer, the climate and environment lead at Transparency International, said: “In the face of a climate emergency, it is unconscionable that organizations committed to protecting our planet from the devastating consequences of fossil fuel extraction should be prosecuted in this manner. “As the world struggles under the weight of an existential climate crisis, it cannot be right that environmental defenders are being silenced by a weaponized legal system.”

Greenpeace says it plans to appeal the verdict, and some legal experts say it has a good case to do so. The appeal would go straight to the state supreme court, as North Dakota does not have an appellate level court.

Kelcy Warren, Energy Transfer’s billionaire founder, is a major donor to Donald Trump.