US Pipeline Lawsuit Sparks High-Stakes Free Speech Battle

WASHINGTON, Feb 23, 2025 (BSS/AFP) – Nearly a decade after activists waged one of the largest anti-pipeline protests in U.S. history, the battle has shifted to the courtroom as Energy Transfer sues Greenpeace for $300 million in a case with major free speech implications.

Pipeline Protest Turns Legal

At the center of the lawsuit is the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), which transports fracked crude oil from North Dakota to global markets. The project, controversial from its inception, faced fierce opposition from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who called it the “Black Snake” and warned of threats to ancestral lands.

Beginning in 2016, large-scale protests and legal challenges attempted to halt construction. By 2017, hundreds of demonstrators had been arrested and injured, drawing United Nations scrutiny over Indigenous sovereignty violations.

Despite the pipeline operating for years, Energy Transfer is pursuing legal action against Greenpeace, accusing it of orchestrating the protests, inciting violence, and defaming the company.

Critics argue that the lawsuit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)—a legal tactic used to intimidate activists and drain their financial resources.

“Big Oil wants to silence Greenpeace and the wider movement,” said Sushma Raman, Greenpeace’s interim executive director. “But let’s be clear: Greenpeace’s actions at Standing Rock were peaceful, lawful, and aligned with our values of non-violence and environmental protection.”

A ‘Message’ Lawsuit?

Energy Transfer denies that the case is about stifling dissent.

“Our lawsuit is about Greenpeace breaking the law,” the company said in a statement. “We fully support lawful protest, but when actions cross legal boundaries, the courts must address them.”

The lawsuit was initially filed in 2017 under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)—a law typically used to prosecute organized crime. While federal courts dismissed the case, Energy Transfer refiled it in North Dakota, a state with no anti-SLAPP protections.

Energy Transfer CEO Kelcy Warren openly stated that his “primary objective” was not financial compensation but to “send a message”—even suggesting that activists “should be removed from the gene pool.”

Greenpeace Fights Back in Europe

In response, Greenpeace International has become the first organization to challenge a SLAPP suit under the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, launching legal action against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands.

“We are asking the Amsterdam District Court to rule that Energy Transfer engaged in an abusive legal process,” said Kristin Casper, General Counsel for Greenpeace International. The case demands financial damages and a public acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

Other fossil fuel giants, including Shell and TotalEnergies, have previously sued Greenpeace—cases the environmental group has successfully fought.

Over 400 organizations and public figures, including Billie Eilish, Jane Fonda, and Susan Sarandon, have signed an open letter backing Greenpeace.

“If Energy Transfer succeeds, it could set a dangerous precedent, chilling protests beyond climate activism,” warned Michael Gerrard, an environmental law professor at Columbia University.

With Greenpeace’s legal battle expanding globally, the case has become a defining moment in the fight for free speech, environmental activism, and corporate accountability.