CliDef Joins Greenpeace in Solidarity Against Weaponization of US Legal System, Crushing Financial Penalties
The decision to fine Greenpeace hundreds of millions of dollars threatens the organization’s future in the United States, and is intended to silence the movement for climate justice.
March 20, 2025 – Yesterday, three Greenpeace entities were found liable for $667 million dollars in damages in a lawsuit filed in North Dakota by Energy Transfer, a Dallas-based oil and gas company worth nearly $70 billion. The suit originated from Greenpeace’s limited role in supporting Indigenous-led protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).
Free speech and civil liberty organizations have been sounding the alarm about how the decision could chill speech in the United States. Global Climate Legal Defense (CliDef), a legal organization and funder working worldwide to defend climate defenders, stands in solidarity with Greenpeace and its allies in condemning the decision.
The lawsuit, Greenpeace vs. Energy Transfer, is a case study of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, otherwise known as SLAPP. SLAPPs are abusive lawsuits designed to shut down criticism or protest related to issues in the public interest. They are frequently filed to intimidate and harass the speaker, including organizations like Greenpeace, into silence. SLAPPs are increasingly used by fossil fuel companies to retaliate against climate defenders, including community members, scientists, and other critics.
This case is about free speech, despite Energy Transfer’s protestations that it was about illegal conduct. The jury's verdict, in which they awarded damages far beyond what Energy Transfer sought, sends an unequivocal message: that public protest can result in crushing financial consequences. The implications for peaceful civil disobedience are profound.
“This decision is a travesty of justice. US law is being weaponized to strengthen already overweening corporate power and to diminish free speech, while the people working to stop climate change are left with devastating financial penalties,” said Betsy Apple of Global Climate Legal Defense. “But let’s be clear - this lawsuit is not just about Greenpeace. As a legal organization working to defend climate defenders against SLAPPs worldwide, we are deeply concerned that this trial in America will become part of the playbook, utilized by companies globally as they seek to entrench fossil fuels while marginalized communities try to defend their land and water. If our collective ability to peacefully advocate for climate justice is imperiled by specious corporate lawsuits intended to silence us, then we will need more lawyers to fight back.”
The Greenpeace trial was also reported to be full of irregularities. An independent trial monitor of esteemed human rights lawyers and corporate accountability experts stated that the verdict came from a “[...] deeply flawed trial with multiple due process violations that denied Greenpeace the ability to present anything close to a full defense.”
The Greenpeace decision is not the first to have a court hand down adverse costs that penalize an environmental organization. In Australia earlier this year, a federal court ordered Environmental Defenders Office to pay $9 million to Santos after the organization failed their legal challenge to an offshore gas project.
Greenpeace plans to appeal the decision.