Landmark Verdict: Environmental Group Faces $670 Million Defamation Ruling

The hefty damages awarded to Energy Transfer against Greenpeace are alarming for activists nationwide. Legal experts argue this ruling may have far-reaching implications for First Amendment rights.

When Greenpeace was handed a staggering nearly $670 million verdict this March due to its involvement in protests against an oil pipeline, a portion of the damages—over a quarter of a billion dollars—was for defamation rather than the protests themselves. This ruling has sent shockwaves through various activist organizations and First Amendment scholars, suggesting it might discourage free speech that hinges on political dissent.

David D. Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University and former national legal director of the ACLU, expressed that the verdict poses a serious threat to nonprofits engaging in political discourse and activism. "Organizations like the Sierra Club or the N.A.A.C.P., as well as pro-life advocates, will be fearful of how they engage in protests and advocacy going forward," he asserted.

The legal battles began when Energy Transfer filed a lawsuit in 2019, claiming that Greenpeace was behind a "violent and unlawful scheme" to sabotage the company financially while halting the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace maintains that it only supported peaceful protests, which were significantly guided by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, focusing on the implications for ancestral land and water safety.

Central to Energy Transfer's case were claims of defamation, exemplified by the jury's findings that Greenpeace falsely alleged the company had "damaged at least 380 sacred and cultural sites" during construction efforts.

Greenpeace has decried the lawsuit as a tactic to silence its critics, with interim director Sushma Raman stating, “This case should alarm everyone, regardless of their political beliefs. The potential erosion of First Amendment protections is a universal concern.”