Greenpeace must pay over $660M in case over Dakota Access protest activities
75 comments
·March 20, 2025delichon
marcinzm
> There should be an analogue of the Major Questions Doctrine to limit the power of juries for the same reason as for bureaucrats: legislators should answer those.
Does this also apply in the case of government or corporate abuse against people? For example class action lawsuits?
I suspect those in power would love this since it's much easier to influence a few career judges than random jurors with "incentives."
staticautomatic
Claims against the federal government aren't heard by juries; the Court of Claims only does bench trials. The subject matter of class actions isn't inherently any more complex than individual cases. The judges vs juries thing is an argument as old as America: Hamilton favored limiting juries, Jefferson insisted they were necessary to protect people from corrupt judges.
prepend
Desecrating graves seems pretty objectively provable and serious, if proven true.
I think lots of defamation cases come down to subjectivity, thus the court systems and judges and whatnot. I don’t think society would benefit from “it’s just he said/she said” and throwing up our hands. Courts are made for these cases.
dagw
Desecrating graves seems pretty objectively provable and serious
My understanding is that the oil companies main defence is that they asked representatives of the tribe in question if any of the land they where planning on building on had any sacred or cultural significance, and the burial ground in question wasn't flagged by the tribe. They claim that they avoided other sites flagged by the tribe, but this site was only brought to their attention much later and after protests had started. Their implicit argument seems to be that this site only 'became' a burial site when it was poltically expedient for it to be one, and that Greenpeace either lied about it being a burial site or at the very least greatly exaggerated it importance.
prepend
That seems to be the disagreement. But saying someone desecrated a grave is a pretty serious accusation.
That’s quite different from accidentally digging up a grave that no one knew was a grave.
Eridrus
One of the reasons we have juries is to answer subjective questions like this, because many questions in law are actually subjective.
billiam
As is the jury selection process, especially in low population areas. And jury instructions from the judge. This seems to be a particularly egregious example, and I think on appeal this will will be corrected.
stickfigure
On the other hand a jury of nine people, vetted with voir dire, found them guilty. There's probably something there. I'm waiting to form opinions until the appeals are over.
g_sch
Notably the jury pool was from North Dakota, a state where many people have direct or indirect ties to oil and gas industries. In fact,
> During jury selection, potential jurors appeared to largely dislike the protests, and many had ties to the fossil fuel industry. In the end, more than half the jurors selected to hear the case had ties to the fossil fuel industry, and most had negative views of anti-pipeline protests or groups that oppose the use of fossil fuels.
lupusreal
You mean conspiring to cause immense economic harm to an already impoverished part of the country will make your organization unpopular in that region? shocked pikachu
staticautomatic
Based on the article's description of jury selection, this seems like a case where the jury was probably biased but the verdict will not be overturned on appeal for that reason. The appeal on that issue probably won't be very helpful to forming an opinion because the bar is unreasonably high and 99.999% of trial lawyers are bad at making the record. Perhaps they can win on a transfer of venue appeal or something, which is quite a long shot but maybe not as long as jury selection bias. (I'm a former jury consultant and a non-practicing lawyer).
mistrial9
> unreasonably high and 99.999% of trial lawyers are bad at making the record
way to go for the clearly exaggerated opening statement
nradov
I don't know how the damages were calculated but it seems that the claims were partly for trespassing. So it wasn't purely about defamation.
rufus_foreman
The claims by the company in question were for far more than defamation:
"[the lead attorney representing Energy Transfer] said all three Greenpeace defendants worked in concert to send supplies to the protests, share intel with protesters and pay Native activists to conduct trainings in the camps that encouraged demonstrators to break the law.
He showed the jury photos of construction equipment with broken windows, anti-pipeline messages written in graffiti and gas tanks filled with sand. He also displayed photos of vehicles on fire."
-- https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/03/17/greenpeace-case-in...
aaronbaugher
Sounds like "fiery but mostly peaceful protests."
ctkhn
Restricting protest like this may work short term, but long term it's a bad play even for the powers that be. If legitimate avenues of resistance are shut off and made as legally risky as more extreme acts, people will just jump to the more extreme. I'm worried that the US is going into something like the years of lead that's just going to make daily life more dangerous for everyone :(
potato3732842
>I'm worried that the US is going into something like the years of lead that's just going to make daily life more dangerous for everyone :(
A serious reduction in the government's ability to enforce it's monopoly on violence would go a long way toward reducing wrong in the world (and it would also motivate the .gov to use its monopoly on violence better but that's beside the point). Organizations specifically, but individuals too, think to much in terms of legal and illegal and not enough in terms of right and wrong.
If individuals and entities that wrong people had to pay up for their own enforcement and protection rather than just leeching on the taxpayer funded jackboots in blue to do it all (after a bunch of expensive court and lawyer process) they would quickly find that a lot of the wronging they do doesn't actually make economic sense. Tons of business models that amount to wronging people too little for them to sue you and too vaguely for a class action or swindling people big-time and then paying your way through the lawsuits to make it stick would evaporate overnight if they had to pay for their own enforcement and security.
However, keep in mind that nothing is free. A lot of little people would be on the receiving end of violence too, not just exploitive megacorps.
Tostino
Right...not that I'm advocating for it, but explosives placed on a pipeline are less obvious to find than a protest.
I agree keeping peaceful avenues for resistance open is a good idea.
aaron695
[dead]
SpicyLemonZest
The pipeline company claimed (https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/12/1%...), and apparently convinced a jury, that the protest movement was largely created by Greenpeace and associated groups spreading false information about their project.
pelagicAustral
> legitimate avenues of resistance...
>> Defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts >> Daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters
It truly doesn't sound like any of these acts are lawful. Just the same as the lunatic radicals from Just Stop Oil, they are bringing no one into their team, au contraire, they are driving people right into the other team by causing major disruption in the layman's daily life, and ZERO effect on their imaginary enemies.
MSFT_Edging
> It truly doesn't sound like any of these acts are lawful.
They should have known to stay within the Free Speech Zone[1].
"The zone, a cage in the middle of nowhere, had little effect because nobody of any importance saw them."
[1]https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Free_speech_zone
sidewndr46
Why are you linking to a wiki about some sort of TV show? Free speech zones are a real thing in the US
awongh
I guess I never considered that these kinds of protest organizations can be held responsible for lost revenue.
It seems like there's a thread connecting the Citizens United case / super PACs to organizations like Greenpeace- if a corporation's (non-persons) right to donate money is protected by freedom of speech, is Greenpeace's right to organize against a corporation protected speech as well?
I can't find anything that specifies that they alleged any illegal activity by Greenpeace.
Seems like otherwise any company can claim damages when a non-profit they don't like is organizing against them.
matsemann
Tobacco companies have traditionally sued everyone trying to implement any kind of policy against tobacco use. That evil oil is doing the same (with success) is not surprising to me, unfortunately. We've built a world where profits trumps everything.
giraffe_lady
Yes this is another major victory in the long bipartisan project of making protest de facto illegal.
chneu
The podcast Drilled did a whole season on how governments have been systematically restricting climate protests for years and how it's ramped up quite aggressively the last decade or three. Tons of examples and whatnot. Great season.
Highly recommend that podcast. She does an amazing job.
ceejayoz
Same technique is being used to combat criticism of factory animal farming.
piokoch
It is pretty surprising that Greenpeace, an organization that was for years actively fighting nuclear energy, what led to the crappy climate warming situation we have now, is accusing someone of "climate destroying".
triceratops
If protesting vigorously, particularly by Greenpeace, killed nuclear energy, why isn't it working for fossil fuels?
prepend
There’s a lot more money in fossil fuels. And it’s more distributed with way more active sites than nuclear.
It takes like, what, 15 years to bring a reactor online? A well can be dug and producing in 1-2 years and there are tens of thousands of them.
triceratops
> There’s a lot more money in fossil fuels
Ding ding ding. You've found who/what killed nuclear. They even managed to frame the environmentalists.
Aloisius
Regular people don't own nuclear power plants. Banning new ones from being built had little immediate personal impact.
Regular people do own devices that use fossil fuels. Banning them means people would immediately have to replace vehicles, water heaters, heaters, stoves, ovens, grills, generators, etc. Raising fuel prices means people immediately feel it.
criddell
Because people are already afraid of nuclear. It doesn’t take much to stoke those fires.
Oil and gasoline are things that people are more familiar and comfortable with.
triceratops
You're forgetting money. O&G were, and continue to be, cheaper than nuclear so the slander stuck.
The fossil fuel industry is trying the same playbook against solar power now. For a long time because solar + batteries were more expensive they didn't have to work very hard at it.
croes
That is not what caused climate warming.
Nuclear energy isn’t a simple substitute for fossil fuels in the industry.
lupusreal
The only thing you can count on Greenpeace to consistently do is to subversively attack the economic stability and defense capabilities of western liberal democracies.
cranium
What would be the best course of action for them if they don't win the appeal? I guess they don't really want to raise more money to put in the pocket of an oil company...
Should they declare bankruptcy and start all over again?
GolfPopper
Appeal, appeal, appeal, and run for President of the United States, and never actually pay?
You can buy a lot of lawyering for a tiny fraction of $660M.
criddell
The idea that all of the assets of Greenpeace in the US could be transferred to an oil company is pretty wild. It would be interesting to see if they start using the Greenpeace, trademarks, logos, and websites.
They could award endorsements: The 2026 Ford F-150 with EcoMode is a Greenpeace recommended vehicle!
ctkhn
They tried doing that with letting the onion bid on infowars' assets and then having it overturned. I get the feeling it might be a different reaction from the judge when the move is pulled in favor of an oil major and not a satire newspaper.
xtiansimon
When I heard this ruling yesterday I thought, Oh boy. What did Greenpeace damage/destroy?
Nope, defamation and trespassing. This is a smack down.
mystraline
I fully expect to see any leftover money held in the USA to be moved out. I see no reason why Greenpeace shouldn't cut losses, and leave any sort of nonprofit status in the USA. Abandon it all.
And for the next 3y 10mo at minimum, this place will be a no-go zone.
My worry is that when peaceful (but annoying!) resistance is illegalized, that much more violent actions will be started in its stead. Violence can be done by individuals, and to large effect.
I'd rather have people yelling and waving signs, than what would amount to terrorism.
benmmurphy
this seems similar to the alex jones decision. these large defamation suits threaten the first amendment. i'm sure partisans on both sides will have some excuse why one of these suits is fine and the other is terrible.
breakyerself
Probably time for them to disband their above board operations and reform as a clandestine paramilitary organization.
throwaway5752
This is a pyrrhic legal victory. If they can operate within the bounds of the law, it prevents asymmetrical outcomes that can't be made whole with financial restitution. If they can't operate within the bounds of the law, worse outcomes are possible. Particularly for ETP with their widespread physical infrastructure.
Like others note, leaving that aside it seems like a kangaroo court outcome in terms of the facts of the case and amount of damages.
m3kw9
How does greenpeace make all that money if they can pay. The judges must know they have it to announce this
LaffertyDev
You can view greenpeace financial statements here: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/annual-reports-and-financial-...
Damages won't be awarded based on the defendant's ability to pay. They are awarded based on the damages the plaintiff successfully argued they are owed.
JohnCClarke
The judgement isn't calculated based on the defendent's ability to pay. Greenpeace USA will be bankruped by this if it is not reduced on appeal.
jmclnx
>Netherlands-based Greenpeace
How will they collect it ? Good luck with that, maybe greenpeace will just cease activities in the US. Or maybe support other groups.
dagw
Greenpeace USA and its subsidiaries are US based non-profits with assets in the US. Nowhere near $600M, but what they do have can be collected, and Greenpeace USA and all its subsidiaries will certainly be driven into bankruptcy
null
geeezzzz
> maybe greenpeace will just cease activities in the US
imho that would be good outcome, many of those 'activities' are 'crimes' according to judge
ceejayoz
This was a jury trial, not a bench trial.
breakyerself
[flagged]
One would think that if there are clear cut examples of false statements that could do on the order of $300M in damage to the company, it wouldn't be difficult to find them. But the defamation allegations I'm reading don't seem to fit in that category, like
These all seem to involve opinion as much as fact. What constitutes aggressive tactics, desecration, climate destruction, motivation, a threat to water resources? Are these damaging statements? Yes. Are they false? That's just, like, your opinion man. There should be an analogue of the Major Questions Doctrine to limit the power of juries for the same reason as for bureaucrats: legislators should answer those.