Closing arguments set to begin in pipeline company’s lawsuit against Greenpeace

MANDAN, N.D. — Closing arguments are scheduled to begin on Monday in a pipeline company’s lawsuit against Greenpeace, a case the environmental advocacy group said could have consequences for free speech and protest rights and threaten the organization’s future.

The jury will deliberate after the closing arguments and jury instructions. Nine jurors and two alternates have heard the case.

North Dakota District Court Judge James Gion told the jury last month when the trial began, “You are the judges of all questions of fact in this case,” and to “base your verdict on the evidence.”

Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access alleged defamation, trespass, nuisance and other offenses by Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, its American branch Greenpeace USA, and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. The pipeline company is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The lawsuit stems from protests in 2016 and 2017 of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline and its Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe for years has opposed the pipeline as a risk to its water supply. The pipeline has transported oil since mid-2017.

Trey Cox, an attorney for the pipeline company, previously said Greenpeace “planned, organized and funded a game plan to stop construction” of the pipeline, “whatever the cost.”

Cox also alleged Greenpeace paid outsiders to come into the area to protest, sent blockade supplies, organized or led protester trainings, passed “critical intel” to the protesters and told untrue statements to stop the line from being built.

He said a letter signed by leaders of Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA and sent to Energy Transfer’s banks contained an allegedly defamatory statement that the company desecrated burial grounds and culturally important sites during construction.

Greenpeace’s “deceptive narrative scared off lenders” and the company lost half its banks, Cox said.

Attorneys for the Greenpeace entities denied the allegations, saying there is no evidence, they had little or no involvement with the protests and the letter was signed by hundreds of organizations from dozens of countries, with no financial institution to testify the organization received, read or was influenced by the letter.

Greenpeace representatives have said the lawsuit is an example of corporations abusing the legal system to go after critics and is a critical test of free speech and protest rights. An Energy Transfer spokesperson said the case is about Greenpeace not following the law, not free speech.