Greenpeace verdict over pipeline protest defamation could spell problems for environmental activism and speech

A North Dakota jury found Greenpeace defamed pipeline builder Energy Transfer during protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, awarding $250 million in defamation damages. What does it mean for environmental activism and free speech?

Karen Zraick reports for The New York Times.

In short:

The jury found Greenpeace made nine defamatory statements about Energy Transfer during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, including claims about desecration of sacred sites and violence against demonstrators.
Legal experts warn the verdict could set a precedent that chills protest speech by nonprofits across the political spectrum, depending on how appeals courts handle First Amendment questions.
Greenpeace plans to appeal in North Dakota’s Supreme Court, while also pursuing a separate countersuit in the Netherlands under European anti-SLAPP laws.

Key quote:

“This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations. We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment.”

— Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace USA

Why this matters:

The court ruling against Greenpeace has sent a chill through advocacy communities nationwide, raising new questions about the limits of protest and public criticism in the United States. At the heart of the case is a judgment against the environmental group for its role in opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline, a verdict many see as a potent example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suit. These lawsuits, often brought by corporations, are less about winning on the merits and more about exhausting critics through prolonged legal battles. While 32 states have passed anti-SLAPP laws to protect individuals and organizations from such tactics, North Dakota has not — an omission now under scrutiny.

For groups focused on environmental justice, Indigenous sovereignty, and climate action, the ruling could mark a turning point — where the legal right to speak out faces growing pressure from financial and political power.

www.nytimes.com

Greenpeace verdict over pipeline protest defamation could spell problems for environmental activism and speech

How can Canada help workers through a green transition?

‘We are just waiting to die’: Mining activists targeted as South Africa delays energy transition

Why one of the world’s greenest countries is betting its future on oil

Victims of Valencia floods grapple with mental toll as rain returns

Why your electric bill is so high now: Blame AI data centers

Trump takes aim at European climate law after killing UN shipping fee

Trump administration moves toward an Arctic Alaska oil lease sale despite the government shutdown

Multiple Houston-area oil and gas facilities that have violated pollution laws are seeking permit renewals

One facility has emitted cancer-causing chemicals into waterways at levels up to 520% higher than legal limits.

Pennsylvania health advocates say Trump’s first 100 days in office have caused “100 harms” to local communities

“They're terrorizing these scientists because they want to keep them silent.”

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

"The reality is, we are not exposed to one chemical at a time.”

Two years into his term, has Gov. Shapiro kept his promises to regulate Pennsylvania’s fracking industry?

A new report assesses the administration’s progress and makes new recommendations

An open letter from EPA staff to the American public

“We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We need to hold this administration accountable.”

New evidence links heavy metal pollution with wildfire retardants

“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.