Pipeline Company Readies for Final Showdown in Lawsuit Against Greenpeace as Closing Arguments Commence

Closing arguments are set to begin on Monday in a lawsuit filed by Dallas-based Energy Transfer against Greenpeace. The case, taking place in Mandan, North Dakota, involves allegations of defamation and other offenses related to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The jury will soon deliberate after hearing from nine jurors and two alternates. Judge James Gion instructed the jury to base their verdict solely on the evidence presented during the trial.

The lawsuit arises from protests that occurred during 2016 and 2017 concerning the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, which transports oil across areas near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has expressed concerns about potential risks to its water supply due to the pipeline’s construction.

Energy Transfer claims that Greenpeace organized and funded efforts to halt construction of the pipeline through various means, including sending supplies for blockades and providing training for protesters. The company alleges that a letter sent by Greenpeace leaders contained false statements regarding desecration of burial grounds, which they argue harmed their relationships with banks.

• Energy Transfer seeks hundreds of millions in damages.
• The pipeline has been operational since mid-2017.
• Greenpeace argues that it had minimal involvement in direct actions against the pipeline.

In response, attorneys for Greenpeace have denied these accusations, asserting there is no evidence linking them directly to protest activities or influencing financial institutions. They contend that this lawsuit represents an attempt by corporations to suppress dissenting voices and challenge free speech rights. An Energy Transfer spokesperson clarified that the case focuses on legal compliance rather than freedom of expression.

This case highlights significant tensions between corporate interests and environmental activism as both sides prepare for closing arguments. The outcome could have lasting implications not only for Greenpeace but also for future protest movements across North America.