A landmark courtroom defeat for Greenpeace has sparked widespread concern among legal experts and climate advocates, who warn the verdict could embolden oil and gas companies to escalate legal action against environmental protesters—especially as Donald Trump’s pro-fossil fuel agenda gains momentum.
On Wednesday, a North Dakota jury ordered three Greenpeace entities to collectively pay Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, over $660 million in damages. The jury found Greenpeace liable for defamation and other claims, marking a major legal win for the fossil fuel giant a prominent Trump donor co-founded.
The case stems from the Dakota Access pipeline protests in 2016 and 2017, where activists and Indigenous communities mobilized to oppose the project’s environmental and cultural impacts. The decision, delivered in a courthouse just miles from where those protests took place, is now seen as a watershed moment in the battle between corporate energy interests and environmental activism.
“This verdict will embolden other energy companies to take legal action against protesters who physically block their projects,” warned Michael Gerrard, founder of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. He added that the decision could have a chilling effect on direct-action climate protests across the U.S., particularly under a potential second Trump presidency, where the “drill, baby, drill” doctrine is expected to take centre stage.
While the ruling may not inhibit legal challenges to fossil fuel projects through courts and policy avenues, it sets a precedent that raises the financial stakes for activist groups, making dissent economically risky and legally fraught.
North Dakota Senator Kevin Cramer, a vocal supporter of the fossil fuel industry, praised the verdict, claiming “justice was served” and warning groups like Greenpeace to “think twice now about doing it again.”
However, civil liberties advocates view the case through a darker lens. Brian Hauss of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project called the lawsuit a “tax on speech” that empowers wealthy corporations to intimidate and silence critics through costly legal battles.
The verdict signals a new era in which environmental groups may be less safe from legal retaliation, particularly in politically charged regions. As Trump-aligned energy policies resurface and fossil fuel interests flex their legal muscle, experts fear the right to protest—and the future of environmental advocacy—may be increasingly at risk. Read More
News Credit: The Guardian
Picture Credit: AFP, The Denver Post, Getty Images