BISMARCK, N.D. — A recent jury verdict has raised significant concerns as attorneys for Greenpeace are challenging a Morton County jury’s $667 million ruling against the environmental organization. The decision, delivered on March 19 following a three-week trial, found Greenpeace liable for damages stemming from protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017. The jury also held the group responsible for defamation related to its statements about Energy Transfer, the pipeline’s developer.
Greenpeace argues that the verdict was influenced by bias rather than evidence. “What the verdict in this case reflected, your honor, is the community’s desire to punish someone who was involved in the protests,” claimed Everett Jack, attorney for Greenpeace’s U.S. affiliate. This statement came during a hearing where Greenpeace requested Southwest Judicial District Court Judge James Gion to reconsider the financial award.
The monetary judgment includes over $200 million in compensatory damages aimed at covering the plaintiff’s financial losses, in addition to approximately $400 million in punitive damages. Energy Transfer, on its part, insists that Greenpeace played a role in organizing violent actions against the pipeline and published knowingly false statements to undermine the company’s operations.
During a recent court session, Greenpeace attorneys reiterated their stance that Energy Transfer failed to provide solid evidence proving financial harm caused by the group. The lawsuit targets various Greenpeace entities, including Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund, with only Greenpeace USA having personnel present at the protests. This U.S.-based entity stated it provided nonviolent training and support to the demonstrations led by Indigenous activists.
Energy Transfer attorney Trey Cox maintained that the jury’s verdict should be upheld, emphasizing that the actions for which Greenpeace was found liable—including defamatory speech and trespassing—do not fall under protected speech rights. He asserted that the jury’s determination served as a clear indicator of the evidence’s credibility.
In defending against the defamation claims, Greenpeace faced allegations from Energy Transfer regarding nine statements deemed harmful to the company’s reputation. According to Greenpeace’s legal representatives, these statements either represented factual truths or expressed opinions regarding the protests. They also argued that Energy Transfer did not prove Greenpeace acted with malice or reckless disregard for the truth, essential criteria in defamation cases.
Greenpeace further contended that the statements were widely circulated by numerous organizations and media outlets, not exclusively by them. The group also highlighted that North Dakota law mandates that a third party must testify about the defamatory nature of the statements. According to Jack, none of Energy Transfer’s witnesses satisfied this requirement during testimony.
Cox countered that the jury must have found these witnesses credible based on the magnitude of the damages awarded, interpreting the jury’s decision as a clear rejection of Greenpeace’s claims. Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund argued they should not be implicated in the lawsuit as neither organization sent employees to North Dakota.
Judge Gion has left the motion for reconsideration of the verdict open for further deliberation. Concurrently, arguments were presented on motions to reduce the substantial financial award. Greenpeace is asserting that the damages exceed legal limits and that inconsistencies undermine the jury’s judgment.
If the court maintains the jury’s ruling, Greenpeace intends to appeal the decision to the North Dakota Supreme Court, stating its commitment to contesting the verdict.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI. The people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate, and any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.