{"id":14523,"date":"2025-05-30T17:24:00","date_gmt":"2025-05-30T17:24:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/usa\/?p=14523"},"modified":"2026-03-03T16:36:10","modified_gmt":"2026-03-03T16:36:10","slug":"energy-transfer-vs-greenpeace-trial-analysis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/usa\/energy-transfer-vs-greenpeace-trial-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"Energy Transfer vs. Greenpeace trial analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Court
The Morton County Memorial Courthouse.
\u00a9 Tim Aubry \/ Greenpeace<\/div><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n

We have now seen the entirety of Energy Transfer\u2019s case and the jury has reached its verdict, awarding the company and its affiliate, Dakota Access (together \u201cET\u201d) over $666 million in compensatory and punitive damages. We can now more fully point out the errors that brought us to this moment, and that will be argued before the entry of the judgment in post-trial motions, and in any appeal. Here is what you need to know about the three Greenpeace defendants1<\/a><\/sup> and Standing Rock.<\/p>\n\n

Energy Transfer alleges that the Greenpeace defendants selfishly \u201cexploited\u201d the 2016-17 protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). In this telling, the Greenpeace defendants were solely responsible for the rapid growth of the protests and everything that took place there. ET alleges the Greenpeace defendants conspired, acted in secret, and provided money, people and resources that led to violence, property destruction, and delayed DAPL\u2019s construction. ET also alleges that the Greenpeace defendants organized a misinformation campaign that spread malicious falsehoods that damaged ET\u2019s business relationships.<\/p>\n\n

Evidence presented at trial supported that the Standing Rock protests were convened, organized and led by Indigenous people from the area. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST) had firmly opposed DAPL since 2014, when the pipeline was rerouted to pass just north of the Standing Rock Reservation. The rallying cry of the protests was \u201cmni wiconi\u201d or \u201cwater is life\u201d, reflecting SRST concerns about risks to water resources downstream. Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairwoman Janet Alkire released a statement on the trial verdict saying that Energy Transfer\u2019s narrative \u201cthat Greenpeace manipulated Standing Rock into protesting DAPL is patronizing and disrespectful to our people.\u201d<\/strong>2<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n

The Greenpeace defendants contended at trial and will contend on appeal that Energy Transfer\u2019s claims against them are totally unfounded, as we describe in more detail below. The jury found otherwise. Notably, one of the arguments that the Greenpeace defendants have repeatedly raised, continue to argue in post-trial motions and will contend on appeal, is that the district court erred in denying the defendants\u2019 motion for change of venue. These points (and others, such as our arguments that we are entitled to relief as a matter of law) are not summarised here, but can be found in our pleadings.3<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n

\n\n

Table of Contents:<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n
    \n
  1. Greenpeace commitment to non-violence and no property destruction<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Greenpeace Inc. supported the protests at Standing Rock only because they were asked by local and Indigenous leaders<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Energy Transfer\u2019s claims and the jury verdict<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. The Greenpeace defendants presented evidence at trial of what they did \u2013 and did not do \u2013 at Standing Rock<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. The jury found that Greenpeace played a significant role in the protests, but the timeline of events suggests otherwise<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. As Greenpeace defendants have argued and will show on appeal, the nine statements alleged to be defamatory cannot be a basis for recovery of damages consistent with the First Amendment<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. Construction delays were due to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers withholding the easement<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. Banks made their own decisions about DAPL financing<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  9. There is no evidence that any alleged damages related to increased security or other costs were proximately caused by the Greenpeace defendants<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  10. Energy Transfer should take responsibility for its own actions<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  11. Post-Trial Updates<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  12. Timeline of Key Events<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n
    \n\n

    1. Greenpeace commitment to non-violence and no property destruction<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

    Everything the Greenpeace defendants did in support of Standing Rock was consistent with the network\u2019s values and more than 50-year commitment to non-violence, no property destruction, and bearing witness to injustice. We argue in our post-trial motions, as we did at trial, that Energy Transfer presented zero evidence<\/em><\/strong> at trial that any<\/em><\/strong> Greenpeace staff, funding, equipment, information or other support were involved in any incidents<\/em><\/strong> involving violence or property destruction.<\/p>\n\n

    One of the three Greenpeace defendants, Greenpeace Inc., supported five Indigenous trainers from the Indigenous Peoples Power Project (IP3) to travel to Standing Rock. Energy Transfer calls them \u201cpaid protesters\u201d but they were not paid to protest, but rather to conduct trainings in de-escalation and non-violent direct action (NVDA). Furthermore, Lakota activist and IP3 co-founder Nick Tilsen emphasized that \u201cWe’re not protesters, we’re protectors<\/strong>\u201d and that the invitation \u201ccame from the Lakota people that were from there.\u201d Tilsen testified that in August 2016 members of the Standing Rock Tribal Council requested that he give a presentation on the idea of NVDA training. Together members of the Tribal Council and IP3 developed Principles for NVDA at Standing Rock.4<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n

    The Principles were posted on a sign at the entrance to camp, and they guided all of Greenpeace Inc. and IP3 activities at Standing Rock. Core principles include \u201cWe are peaceful and prayerful<\/strong>\u201d and \u201cProperty damage does not get us closer to our goal.<\/strong>\u201d5<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n

    A total of six Greenpeace Inc. employees traveled to Standing Rock.6<\/a><\/sup> Greenpeace Inc.\u2019s role in supporting the protests was small, but the organization remains proud of standing with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST), other Tribal Nations, and the Water Protectors in that moment.<\/p>\n\n

    No witness testimony or document presented at trial showed that Greenpeace Inc. engaged in or encouraged violence or property destruction \u2013 even Energy Transfer\u2019s witnesses could not point to any such evidence.7<\/a><\/sup> Despite this lack of evidence, Energy Transfer\u2019s lawyers persuaded the jury that Greenpeace Inc. had organized, encouraged or participated in violence or property destruction at Standing Rock. The jury was shown evidence of vandalism, destroyed equipment, rocks and other objects thrown at law enforcement, law enforcement being shot at, people receiving death threats \u2013 with the implication that Greenpeace was behind it all. But no evidence connected those incidents to the Greenpeace defendants, because Greenpeace did not, and would not, participate in nor encourage any such violent activities.<\/p>\n\n

    2. Greenpeace Inc. supported the protests at Standing Rock only because they were asked by local and Indigenous leaders<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

    Greenpeace Inc. played a small, supporting role in a large, Indigenous-led protest. The protest encampments held 10,000 people at their peak in the fall of 2016, and it is estimated that a total of 100,000 people came to stand with Standing Rock over time. Only six of those people were Greenpeace Inc. employees. Over 300 Tribal Nations answered SRST\u2019s call to action, making it reportedly the largest gathering of Tribal Nations in 100 years. Others who came to Standing Rock included faith leaders, veterans groups, celebrities, journalists, an Expert Member of a United Nations advisory body, and Indigenous supporters from around the world. <\/p>\n\n

    Greenpeace Inc. (and the five IP3 trainers financially supported by Greenpeace Inc.) only supported the on the ground activity at Standing Rock when asked by the Indigenous leadership. As Nick Tilsen testified, \u201cGreenpeace did not show up at Standing Rock on their own accord. They only came, in fact, after they were invited to come and after, quite frankly, we’d already established our own nonviolent direct action training principles that were aligned with our values. […] They [Greenpeace Inc.] came to the party later.\u201d8<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n

    Former Greenpeace Inc. Executive Director Annie Leonard confirmed this account in her testimony, and stated that it was over concerns that the situation was becoming dangerous that Greenpeace Inc. was asked to help out. Describing a conversation with the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) Executive Director Tom Goldtooth: \u201c[Tom] wanted it to be peaceful, and he was concerned that there was some tension escalating. And so […] he asked if we could help send some [trainers] or somebody [who] could help in de-escalation [techniques].\u201d9<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n

    Another former Greenpeace Inc. employee testified that when he arrived at camp there was \u201ca lot of tension […] There were a lot of people who were angry in the situation, their voices weren’t being heard, and the pipeline [was] being built without tribal consent.\u201d10<\/a><\/sup> Greenpeace Inc. was attempting to support non-violent solutions to an escalating conflict, but instead Greenpeace has been blamed for the whole affair.<\/p>\n\n

    Tilsen testified that because Greenpeace Inc. staff and the paid IP3 trainers were not Lakota people from the area, they did not play a leadership role in formulating strategy or in deploying non-violent direct actions (NVDAs).11<\/sup> <\/a>This approach was consistent with Greenpeace Inc.\u2019s official Indigenous Peoples Policy which requires the organization to \u201cseek input and guidance\u201d from Indigenous leaders before planning any activities that could impact them.12<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n

    All Greenpeace Inc. employees left the protest by early December 2016, and one staff member returned afterwards in mid-December to help clean up the camp.13<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n

    3. Energy Transfer\u2019s claims and the jury verdict<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

    Over the course of almost eight years and two lawsuits, Energy Transfer has leveled a lot of accusations against Greenpeace.14<\/a><\/sup> However, this is what ET\u2019s lawyers said in their closing arguments:<\/p>\n\n

    \u201cGreenpeace took a small, disorganized, local issue and exploited it to shut down the Dakota Access Pipeline and to promote its own selfish agenda. It provided money, people and resources into Morton County and caused great harm. They thought they’d never get caught. They thought that no one would ever know that they did it. Well, as I told you in opening, this is the day of reckoning.\u201d<\/em>15<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n

    The following is what ET\u2019s lawyers claimed to have proven at trial:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

      \n
    1. \u201cGreenpeace acted as one enterprise to stop DAPL at all costs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. Greenpeace\u2019s deceptions: Codewords, anonymity, and amnesia.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. Greenpeace powered camp, funded professional trainers and organized thousands of protestors, causing delay and expense.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    4. Greenpeace delayed DAPL construction and disrupted shipper relationships.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    5. Greenpeace spread malicious, deceptive stories about Energy Transfer.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    6. Greenpeace sabotaged Energy Transfer\u2019s banking relationships.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    7. Greenpeace acted with malice throughout.\u201d16<\/a><\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n

      Based on this, ET alleged the following claims and the associated damages, as calculated by their own damage experts:<\/p>\n\n

      Legal Claims:<\/th>Energy Transfer’s Claimed Damages:<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
      \u2013 Trespass
      \u2013 Trespass to chattel
      \u2013 Conversion
      \u2013 Nuisance
      \u2013 Aiding & abetting to the above
      \u2013 Civil conspiracy<\/td>      		\u2013 Increased security costs: $60.2 million<\/strong>
      \u2013 Increased contractor costs: $14.6 million<\/strong>
      \u2013 Purchase of the Cannonball Ranch: $8.4 million<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
      \u2013 Tortious interference with shipping relationships<\/td>\u2013 Lost profits due to delay in pipeline starting operations $80.1 million<\/strong>18<\/a><\/sup><\/td><\/tr>
      \u2013 Defamation
      \u2013 Defamation per se17<\/a><\/sup>
      \u2013 Tortious interference with banking relationships<\/td>      		\u2013 Costs from refinancing the construction loan $96.4 million<\/strong>
      \u2013 Increased PR costs $7 million<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n

      These damages total $266.7 million and represent the entirety of Energy Transfer\u2019s claimed economic damages related to the Standing Rock protests. ET\u2019s damages experts testified that they were instructed to assume that Greenpeace was responsible for 100% of the protest-related damages \u2013 no matter where or when they occurred.19<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n

      The jury agreed with Energy Transfer and awarded over $264 million in compensatory damages, and then added on $402 million in punitive damages, bringing the total to over $666 million. Only Greenpeace Inc. was found liable for trespass, trespass to chattel, conversion, nuisance, and aiding and abetting. All three Greenpeace defendants were found liable for defamation, defamation per se, and tortious interference. Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace International were found liable for civil conspiracy. The full jury form can be viewed here.20<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n

      We discuss each of these claims and damages categories in more detail below.<\/p>\n\n

      4. The Greenpeace defendants presented evidence at trial of what they did \u2013 and did not do \u2013 at Standing Rock<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

      Greenpeace Inc. presented evidence at trial that its activities at Standing Rock consisted of the following:<\/p>\n\n