April 24, 2025:
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday (April 23, 2025) found the state of North Dakota entitled to nearly $28 million for responding to protests of the Dakota Access oil pipeline in 2016 and 2017 — a win for the state in its multiyear effort to recoup the costs from the federal government.
The state filed the lawsuit in 2019, seeking $38 million for policing the protests. The sometimes-chaotic demonstrations drew international attention for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s opposition to the pipeline’s Missouri River crossing upstream of the tribe’s reservation. The tribe has long opposed the pipeline, fearing an oil spill polluting its water supply.
A trial played out over several weeks in early 2024 in federal court in Bismarck, the state capital. People who testified included former North Dakota governors Doug Burgum, who took office in December 2016 during the protests’ height, and Jack Dalrymple, whose administration responded to the protests’ early months.
U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor found the United States liable to the state on all claims and for more than $27.8 million in damages.
The judge wrote: “The bottom line: United States had a mandatory procedure, it did not follow that procedure, and harm occurred to the state of North Dakota. The law allows reimbursement for this harm. More than that, the rule of law requires this Court to hold the United States liable to remind it of its role in the larger picture of ensuring peace, not chaos.”
Thousands of people camped and demonstrated against the pipeline near the crossing for months, resulting in hundreds of arrests. Sometimes-violent clashes occurred between protesters and law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers from around the state and region responded to the protests.
The protest camps were cleared in February 2017. An attorney for the state said the protests ended in a response of more than seven months involving 178 agencies, resulting in 761 arrests and requiring four days of cleanup of the camp to remove millions of pounds of trash.
In a joint statement, Gov. Kelly Armstrong and Attorney General Drew Wrigley said: “As outlined in trial testimony and Judge Traynor’s ruling, decisions made by the Obama administration emboldened protestors and ultimately caused millions of dollars in damage to North Dakota, while endangering the health and safety of North Dakota communities, families and law enforcement officers who responded to the protests.”
The state’s claims included negligence, gross negligence, civil trespass and public nuisance.
Attorneys for the government said at trial that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials “acted reasonably given limited options at their disposal” during the protests, and that the state’s claim is “greatly overstated.” The government asked the judge to find a lack of legal jurisdiction for the state’s claims, that the state hasn’t proven its claims and is not entitled to damages.
The Associated Press sent an email to an attorney who argued for the federal government at trial seeking comment.
The pipeline has been transporting oil since June 2017. Many state government officials and industry leaders support the pipeline as crucial infrastructure in the country’s No. 3 oil-producing state. The pipeline carries roughly 5% of the United States’ daily oil production.
In 2017, the pipeline company, Energy Transfer, donated $15 million to help cover the response costs. That same year, the U.S. Justice Department gave a $10 million grant to the state for reimbursing the response. The judge found the former to be a gift and reduced the latter from the state’s total recovery.
Then-President Donald Trump denied a 2017 request from the state for the federal government to cover the costs through a disaster declaration.
The pipeline is operating while a court-ordered environmental review of the river crossing is carried out.
A North Dakota jury recently found Greenpeace liable for defamation and other claims brought by the pipeline’s builder in connection with protest activities, with damages surpassing $660 million against three Greenpeace organizations.
March 19, 2025:
Story Body
March 17, 2025:
MANDAN, N.D. (AP) — Closing arguments are scheduled to begin on Monday (March 17, 2025) in a pipeline company’s lawsuit against Greenpeace, a case the environmental advocacy group said could have consequences for free speech and protest rights and threaten the organization’s future.
The jury will deliberate after the closing arguments and jury instructions. Nine jurors and two alternates have heard the case.
North Dakota District Court Judge James Gion told the jury last month when the trial began, “You are the judges of all questions of fact in this case,” and to “base your verdict on the evidence.”
Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access alleged defamation, trespass, nuisance and other offenses by Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, its American branch Greenpeace USA, and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. The pipeline company is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
The lawsuit stems from protests in 2016 and 2017 of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline and its Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe for years has opposed the pipeline as a risk to its water supply. The pipeline has transported oil since mid-2017.
Trey Cox, an attorney for the pipeline company, previously said Greenpeace “planned, organized and funded a game plan to stop construction” of the pipeline, “whatever the cost.”
Cox also alleged Greenpeace paid outsiders to come into the area to protest, sent blockade supplies, organized or led protester trainings, passed “critical intel” to the protesters and told untrue statements to stop the line from being built.
He said a letter signed by leaders of Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA and sent to Energy Transfer’s banks contained an allegedly defamatory statement that the company desecrated burial grounds and culturally important sites during construction.
Greenpeace’s “deceptive narrative scared off lenders” and the company lost half its banks, Cox said.
Attorneys for the Greenpeace entities denied the allegations, saying there is no evidence, they had little or no involvement with the protests and the letter was signed by hundreds of organizations from dozens of countries, with no financial institution to testify the organization received, read or was influenced by the letter.
Greenpeace representatives have said the lawsuit is an example of corporations abusing the legal system to go after critics and is a critical test of free speech and protest rights. An Energy Transfer spokesperson said the case is about Greenpeace not following the law, not free speech.
February 27, 2025:
MANDAN, N.D. (AP) — An attorney for a Texas pipeline company said Wednesday (Feb. 26, 2025) at trial that he will prove various Greenpeace entities coordinated delays and disruptions of a controversial oil pipeline’s construction in North Dakota, and defamed the company to its lenders.
Attorneys for the Greenpeace defendants told a jury there is no evidence to back up the claims by Dallas-based Energy Transfer, which seeks potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in damages from Greenpeace.
The case is tied to protests in 2016 and 2017 of the Dakota Access Pipeline and its controversial Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has long opposed the pipeline as a risk to its water supply. The pipeline was completed in 2017.
Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access allege trespass, nuisance, defamation and other offenses by Netherlands-based Greenpeace International and its American branch, Greenpeace USA. The lawsuit also names the group’s funding arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc.
Greenpeace paid professional protesters to come to the area, sent blockade supplies, organized or led protester trainings, passed “critical intel” to the protesters and told untrue things to stop the pipeline from being built, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Trey Cox, told the jury in his opening statement.
“They didn’t think that there would ever be a day of reckoning, but that day of reckoning begins today,” Cox said in opening statements.
Attorneys for the defendants emphasized what they said are distinctions between the various Greenpeace entities, such as what they do and how they’re organized.
They said Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund Inc. had zero involvement in the protests, while Greenpeace USA had six employees at Standing Rock for five to 51 days. Greenpeace is committed to nonviolence, and only got involved at Standing Rock because of tribal outreach, the attorneys said.
“This was an Indigenous-led movement by the Native tribes, and we wanted them to have the spotlight,” said Greenpeace USA attorney Everett Jack Jr.
One of nine alleged defamatory statements — that Energy Transfer desecrated burial grounds and culturally important sites during construction — was made many times by the tribe before any of the Greenpeace statements, he said.
Cox said that statement was included in a letter sent to Energy Transfer’s banks and signed by the executive directors of Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA.
He added that Energy Transfer made 140 adjustments to its pipeline route in order to respect sacred sites.
“Our goal was to be a good corporate citizen in North Dakota,” Cox said.
More than 500 organizations from more than 50 countries signed on to that letter, said Greenpeace International attorney Courtney DeThomas, who described it as an act of free expression.
No financial institution will testify that it received, read or was influenced by the letter, which was signed after thousands of protesters were already at Standing Rock, DeThomas said.
Greenpeace representatives have said the lawsuit is an example of corporations abusing the legal system to go after critics and is a critical test of free speech and protest rights. An Energy Transfer spokesperson said the case is about Greenpeace not following the law, not free speech.
Greenpeace says the lawsuit is going after $300 million, citing a figure from a previous federal case. The lawsuit complaint asks for damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
Because of Greenpeace, Energy Transfer incurred over $82 million in security, contractor and property costs, and lost $80 million of profits, Cox told jurors. The pipeline was supposed to be completed by Jan. 1, 2017, but wasn’t moving oil until five months later, he said.
Greenpeace’s “deceptive narrative scared off lenders” and Energy Transfer lost half its banks, he said. The company suffered over $68 million in lost financing and spent $7.6 million for public relations “to deal with these problems and lies” from the “whisper campaign,” Cox said.
But Jack said Greenpeace had nothing to do with the company’s delays in operating or refinancing. He also disputed how Energy Transfer is claiming or calculating its damages. The company also has no expert to back its claim of reputational harm, he said.
Jury selection took place earlier in the week and the estimated five-week trial is now underway. Nine jurors and two alternates will hear the case in Mandan, North Dakota.
The company filed a similar case in federal court in 2017, which a judge dismissed in 2019. Energy Transfer subsequently filed the lawsuit now at trial in state court.
Earlier in February, Greenpeace International filed an anti-intimidation suit in the District Court of Amsterdam against Energy Transfer, saying the company acted wrongfully and should pay costs and damages resulting from its “meritless” litigation.
February 26, 2025:
MANDAN, N.D. (AP) — A Texas pipeline company’s lawsuit seeking potentially hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace was set to advance with opening statements Wednesday (Feb. 26, 2025) in a trial the environmental organization calls an effort to silence critics of the oil industry.
Jury selection took place earlier in the week and the estimated five-week trial now will get underway in Mandan, North Dakota.
The lawsuit stems from protests in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access oil pipeline and its controversial Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has long opposed the pipeline as a risk to its water supply. The pipeline was completed in 2017.
Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access allege trespass, nuisance, defamation and other offenses by Netherlands-based Greenpeace International and its American branch, Greenpeace USA. The lawsuit also names the group’s funding arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc.
The lawsuit alleges Greenpeace tried to delay construction of the pipeline, defamed the companies behind it, and coordinated trespassing, vandalism and violence by pipeline protesters.
The Greenpeace defendants deny the allegations.
Greenpeace says the lawsuit is going after $300 million, citing a figure from a previous federal case. The lawsuit complaint asks for damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
Greenpeace representatives say the case is an example of corporations abusing the legal system to go after critics and is a critical test of free speech and protest rights.
“We are trying to bring visibility around a fight that will have major implications for the future of the First Amendment because those who bring these types of lawsuits, they want these fights to remain silent and invisible,” said Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha.
The lawsuit is about Greenpeace not following the law, not about free speech, Energy Transfer spokesperson Vicki Granado has said previously.
“We support the rights of all Americans to express their opinions and lawfully protest. However, when it is not done in accordance with our laws, we have a legal system to deal with that,” she said.
The company filed a similar case in federal court in 2017, which a judge dismissed in 2019. Energy Transfer subsequently filed the lawsuit now at trial in state court.
Comments