Greenpeace Faces $300 Million Lawsuit That Puts the Longtime Environmental Nonprofit at Risk of Bankruptcy

Greenpeace is being sued by Energy Transfer, a Dallas-based company that is accusing the longtime environmentalist group of having disrupted its business with protests near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation almost a decade ago.

The trial began Monday in North Dakota, and, if successful, the lawsuit could bankrupt the nonprofit.

Filed in state court, legal action accuses Greenpeace of an “unlawful and violent scheme to cause financial harm to Energy Transfer, physical harm to its employees and infrastructure, and to disrupt and prevent Energy Transfer’s construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline,” reported BBC News.

Environmental activists said the claims are meant to suppress freedom of speech and establish a disturbing precedent for protest groups, The New York Times reported.

Greenpeace, they said, was there to support Native Americans, who led the demonstrations.

“This trial is a critical test of the future of the First Amendment, both freedom of speech and peaceful protest under the Trump administration and beyond,” Sushma Raman, Greenpeace’s interim director, said on Thursday.

Greenpeace said Energy Transfer is seeking $300 million in damages — 10 times the nonprofit’s annual budget. Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace fund were named as co-defendants in the case.

The trial is expected to last five weeks in Mandan, North Dakota, state court. Many people are questioning whether Greenpeace can persuade a jury in the conservative state.

Approval of the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 led to protests by Native Americans who said the 1,170-mile crude oil pipeline would encroach on their sacred lands and pose a risk to the water supply.

Thousands came from all over the country to express their opposition to the pipeline, which stretches from North Dakota to Illinois. For months an encampment was set up near the reservation, while Tribal leaders sued to block it.

Police and security confronted protestors on many occasions, during which time Energy Transfer claimed their equipment was damaged and their financing prospects were harmed. Final approvals remain pending for the pipeline, though it is now in operation.

Energy Transfer filed a lawsuit in federal court against a broader group of defendants in 2017. The action, which alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, was dismissed. A similar complaint was filed in state court.

The most recent version of the litigation accuses Greenpeace of trespass, conspiracy, defamation and tortious business interference. The lawsuit says Greenpeace spread misinformation, inciting the protests and seriously damaging the company’s ability to do business.

Lawyer for Greenpeace Deepa Padmanabha said the environmental nonprofit was not central to protest efforts, though it supported them and helped train those present in nonviolent direct action.

Padmanabha said Energy Transfer’s trespass claims specifically sought to impose “collective protest liability” on Greenpeace, a claim that has the potential to make any group responsible for the acts of all others present.

Greenpeace said it “could face financial ruin, ending over 50 years of environmental activism,” reported BBC News.

“For more than 50 years, Greenpeace has exercised our right to peacefully protest and expose environmental harm — even when that means exposing powerful people and companies. That is the soul of Greenpeace. With this $300 million lawsuit, Energy Transfer has weaponized the U.S. legal system in an attempt to silence us at a time when our voices are needed most,” Greenpeace said on its website. “If enough of us speak out, we can stop this abusive lawsuit, protect Greenpeace, and defend free speech.”