This week, a jury in North Dakota found Greenpeace liable for more than $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. It was a monumental verdict that many civil society groups and First Amendment lawyers have warned could chill free speech.

The case stems from the protests that erupted near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in 2016, when Indigenous activists and environmentalists gathered to oppose construction of the pipeline, which crossed the Missouri River close to the reservation. Standing Rock leaders warned that a spill could contaminate their water supply and that construction would disturb sacred lands, and said they had not been properly consulted.

Some of the protests included acts of vandalism and clashes with pipeline company employees and law enforcement, and Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of providing financial and other support to the people involved. Greenpeace said it played only a minor role in the protests.

The jury ruled against Greenpeace on numerous counts, however, finding it liable for trespass, conspiracy, defamation and other offenses. The case named three Greenpeace entities as defendants, two in the United States and its international umbrella organization.

A group of human rights and environmental lawyers formed to monitor the trial, concerned that it would not be conducted fairly. After the verdict was announced, the group said it found “problems that included a jury that was patently biased in favor of Energy Transfer, with many members working in the fossil fuel industry; a judge who lacked the requisite experience and legal knowledge to rule properly on the complex First Amendment and other evidentiary issues at the center of the case; and incendiary and prejudicial statements by lawyers for Energy Transfer that tried to criminalize Greenpeace and by extension the entire climate movement by attacking constitutionally-protected advocacy.”

Greenpeace said it will appeal.

In a statement, Greenpeace USA senior legal counsel, Deepa Padmanabha, said “Greenpeace USA will never directly comment on the jury or the judge, but we are on the record making four attempts over the course of this trial in Mandan, North Dakota to change our venue. That motion was denied three times by the court, and once by the State Supreme Court,  despite valid concerns about the possibility of ensuring fairness and the appearance of fairness, and so on.”

Padmanabha said that “there are many possible legal grounds for appeal—to name some, there was a lack of evidence to support key findings and key evidence being incorrectly ruled out, while other evidence was allowed despite being irrelevant and prejudicial.” 

Inside Climate News spoke with Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace USA, the day after the verdict about what it will mean for the organization and environmental advocacy more broadly.

Inside Climate News also requested an interview with Kelcy Warren, executive chairman of Energy Transfer’s board of directors, but received no response.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

NICHOLAS KUSNETZ: Can you walk us through the moment you heard the verdict, and what the scene was like and what your first thoughts were?

SUSHMA RAMAN: I was seated in the courtroom in Mandan, North Dakota, along with my other colleagues from Greenpeace International, as well as Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace Inc. In the audience were also members of the local community, supporters, Indigenous allies, as well as independent trial monitors who have been monitoring this trial to ensure that we get a fair trial.

It was very calm in the courtroom. There were a couple of armed security guards there for the verdict, but it was very, very calm and composed.

I think we were all in a state of shock to be honest, because we know that the truth is on our side, and that we showed up in solidarity with our Indigenous allies. We showed up to ensure that, you know, at a time when the entire world was watching what was happening at Standing Rock, that we were part of the movement to ensure environmental justice and Indigenous, you know, ally-ship.

KUSNETZ: So $660 million is a lot of money, of course, and I’m wondering if you can put that figure in context for readers and tell us what the verdict means for Greenpeace USA and its operations?

RAMAN: It is a very large amount of money for most organizations and individuals, as you can imagine. It’s a fairly small amount of money for Energy Transfer. And the reality is that this case is not really about the money, even though it’s a very large amount. It’s really about the desire to send a message that a powerful company can silence a large environmental organization, and send a message to other organizations, not just environmental groups, other types of groups that are trying to hold power to account, that we will use these tools, strategic litigation against public participation, or SLAPPs, to intimidate you, or silence you, or perhaps even bankrupt you.

KUSNETZ: To press on this again, is this the kind of figure that could bankrupt Greenpeace if it does have to pay?

RAMAN: Well, we are definitely going to appeal. So we’re not at the stage of having to pay. We are going to appeal this, and we are confident in our case and in the facts. So this is the next chapter in this journey, if you will. Yes, but this is a number that far exceeds our annual budget by many times.

KUSNETZ: You have said that you believe the law is on your side. Can you tell us what the jury got wrong on the law specifically?

RAMAN: I don’t know if I could answer that question precisely, since I’m not a lawyer, and you know, I’m a more recent arrival to the organization, but I will say that the three Greenpeace entities, you know, played a very minor role, and a supportive one, at the request of Indigenous leaders to provide nonviolent direct action training at Standing Rock. We signed a petition that was being circulated by another organization, that was signed by hundreds of other organizations.

So what is worrisome about this is that any individual or organization who participates in advocacy and free speech, who signs onto a petition or shows up at a peaceful protest or engages in other forms of advocacy, could be targeted and penalized in this manner. So this is the worrisome impact of this, not just for Greenpeace, but for other movement based organizations.

KUSNETZ: Continuing with that, ever since Energy Transfer first filed this case in 2017, many groups warned that it could chill free speech by intimidating others, as you said, and especially smaller groups. Has this happened already?

RAMAN: Just sort of anecdotally, I spotted on social media a couple of folks working in industries related to oil and gas, saying, ‘Oh, this is great. This teaches them a lesson. And maybe this is a tactic we need to use to silence other environmental groups that are basically a thorn in our side.’

So I do think that this will both embolden the fossil fuel industry, and it will also perhaps silence groups that are working not just in the environmental and climate space, but other groups working with vulnerable communities, such as, for example, undocumented immigrants or trans youth, other folks who are really trying to challenge the status quo or to change the situation for the better, but perhaps might not have the kind of financial resources and people power and legal infrastructure like a Greenpeace has. They might sort of self-censor because they’re afraid of being wiped out in this current environment.

KUSNETZ: As you said, you plan to appeal, or maybe you already have appealed. My understanding is that appeal could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. 

RAMAN: It would first go to the North Dakota Supreme Court… But on the First Amendment portions, it could definitely go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

KUSNETZ: If it were to get that far, there’s a risk that a conservative majority could set some kind of precedent on a First Amendment case. Right? Is this something you’ve been thinking about? And if so, can you give us a window into some of the discussions you’ve had?

RAMAN: You know, I think this is the challenge we face at this time, as to, you know, everything you do could be precedent setting. So I feel like we have to really be guided by our values, which are nonviolence, peace, protecting the planet, the environment, you know, addressing sort of the immediate issues as well as the longer term issues, showing up in solidarity with Indigenous communities.

So, you know, all the decisions we make in the coming weeks and months have to be guided by our values and principles and in consultation with Indigenous leaders who are actually the ones directly affected by this matter, and who have largely been invisible in the way this has played out in the courtroom.

KUSNETZ: Coming back to the verdict, if Greenpeace loses on appeal, what does that look like for environmental advocacy in the U.S.?

RAMAN: Well, in two years, I think we might have a reinvigorated protest movement, which is what might be, you know, what Big Oil might fear. But I do think that we may be in a different place in two years in terms of the mood in the country, galvanization around politics, around engagement and democracy.

We see these swings forward and back routinely in the history of this country and in places around the world. And so it’s a little hard to predict at that time, but I see our work happening in the courtroom … as well as in the court of public opinion, engaging with media, engaging with other advocacy groups and so on. And we could anticipate that that work will continue.

KUSNETZ: What does this verdict mean in the context of the Trump administration’s efforts not just to roll back climate policies, but also to challenge nonprofit groups and the courts more broadly now. Can you speak about that?

RAMAN: Yeah, this is a challenging time for civil society, but it’s also a galvanizing time. And my hope is that this is a moment where we can come together to focus not just on our individual organizations, but also on building solidarity across the sector and across issues to ensure that we can preserve what’s the fundamental hallmark of U.S. democracy and independent and thriving civil society, as well as actually the media, right? Having the free press and ensuring that that can continue in the decades to come.

KUSNETZ: Was there anything else that I didn’t ask that I should have asked?

RAMAN: I will just say that this is a large judgment, and this is a large kind of matter for an organization, or set of organizations, like Greenpeace. But you can’t bankrupt a movement. You can attack an organization, but the movement is bigger than the organization, and what’s unique with the Greenpeace model is that we are people powered. We do not accept government support. We don’t accept corporate support. We aren’t beholden to anyone. We are powered by tens of thousands of individuals who care about the planet, who want to ensure our oceans are protected, our forests are protected, that we can have clean air, not just for us, but also for future generations. So I feel confident that we will endure no matter what the outcome of the appeals will be.

Nicholas Kusnetz

Reporter, New York City

Nicholas Kusnetz is a reporter for Inside Climate News. Before joining ICN, he worked at the Center for Public Integrity and ProPublica. His work has won numerous awards, including from the Society of Environmental Journalists, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Society of American Business Editors and Writers, and has appeared in more than a dozen publications, including The Washington Post, Businessweek, The Nation, Fast Company and The New York Times. Nicholas can be reached on Signal at nkusnetz.15.

• 
  @nkus
  
• 
  [email protected]