Closing arguments in a lawsuit filed by a pipeline company against Greenpeace are set to begin on Monday. The case, which Greenpeace argues could have serious implications for free speech and protest rights, is being closely watched as it could threaten the organization’s future. The jury will deliberate following the closing arguments and instructions from the judge. Nine jurors and two alternates have been listening to the case.
Judge James Gion of North Dakota District Court told the jury last month, as the trial started, that they are responsible for determining all factual matters in the case, and should base their verdict on the evidence presented.
The lawsuit was filed by Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access, which accuse the Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, its U.S. branch Greenpeace USA, and its funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. of defamation, trespassing, nuisance, and other charges. The pipeline company is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
The lawsuit is related to protests that took place in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access Pipeline, specifically its crossing of the Missouri River, which is located upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. For years, the tribe has been against the pipeline, citing concerns about its potential threat to their water supply. The pipeline has been transporting oil since the middle of 2017.
Trey Cox, an attorney representing the pipeline company, previously claimed that Greenpeace was responsible for planning, organizing, and funding efforts to halt the pipeline’s construction at any cost.
Cox further accused Greenpeace of paying outsiders to join the protests, providing supplies for blockades, organizing or leading training for protesters, sharing crucial information with them, and spreading false statements to prevent the pipeline from being built.
He also mentioned a letter signed by leaders of Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA, which was sent to the banks of Energy Transfer. The letter allegedly contained defamatory claims that the company had desecrated burial grounds and other culturally significant sites during the pipeline’s construction.
Cox stated that Greenpeace’s “deceptive narrative” caused lenders to back out, resulting in the company losing half of its banks.
Attorneys representing the Greenpeace organizations denied these accusations, arguing that there is no evidence to support them. They also emphasized that Greenpeace had minimal or no involvement with the protests and pointed out that the letter was signed by hundreds of organizations from various countries. Furthermore, they stated that no financial institution had testified to receiving, reading, or being influenced by the letter.
Greenpeace representatives have argued that the lawsuit is an example of corporations using the legal system to target critics, making it a crucial case for defending free speech and the right to protest. In response, an Energy Transfer spokesperson clarified that the case concerns Greenpeace’s failure to follow the law, rather than an issue of free speech.