Greenpeace Faces Uphill Battle in Landmark Legal Dispute Over Dakota Access Pipeline

In an ongoing legal saga, Greenpeace's defense against a lawsuit over its involvement in Dakota Access Pipeline protests highlights the contentious atmosphere surrounding the case.

The high-profile trial involving Greenpeace commenced this week in North Dakota, as the environmental organization contends with a significant lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). This case, initially brought to court in 2019, accuses Greenpeace of being a substantial influence in the protests that impeded the pipeline's construction, which has been operational since 2017, transporting oil from North Dakota to Illinois.

Greenpeace maintains a defense of having played a minimal role in the protests, insisting that their actions were primarily in solidarity with Native American activists opposing the project's environmental impact. In a motion presented to the North Dakota Supreme Court, the group has requested a trial relocation from Morton County, asserting that the ongoing bias from residents, stemming from months of protest disruptions in 2016 and 2017, compromises their ability to receive a fair trial.

The protests generated notable national attention and occasionally resulted in violent confrontations. As jury selection advances in Morton County, Greenpeace lawyers expressed heightened concern regarding potential jury impartiality, reinforcing their plea for the trial to move to Fargo, where they believe a more neutral jury pool exists. They assert that the selection process demonstrated the previous oversight of needing a different venue, citing that the local tension surrounding the issue deeply impacts prospective jurors.

As the case progresses, it brings into question the balance between activism, environmental advocacy, and corporate interests, underlining the complexities inherent in significant infrastructure projects like the Dakota Access Pipeline.