Landmark Trial of Greenpeace Faces Challenges in Opening Week
The opening week of a high-stakes trial involving Greenpeace, centered on a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer over protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), did not go well for the defense. Greenpeace lawyers filed a petition with the North Dakota Supreme Court, requesting the case be moved from Morton County, citing concerns about an impartial jury. The protests, which disrupted daily life in the region for nearly a year between 2016 and 2017, were centered near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, just south of the state line.
The protests against the pipeline, which carries oil from North Dakota to Illinois, gained international attention, drawing thousands of participants and occasionally resulting in violent clashes. Energy Transfer, the company behind the pipeline, first sued Greenpeace in 2019, accusing the environmental group of playing a significant role in delaying pipeline construction, as well as allegedly inciting attacks on staff and equipment.
Greenpeace’s Defense and Concerns Over Fairness
Greenpeace, one of the world’s most prominent environmental organizations, maintains that it played only a minor role in the protests, supporting Indigenous activists in a non-violent capacity. In their petition, Greenpeace lawyers argued that the jury selection process highlighted the Morton County court’s inability to provide a fair trial, given the local community’s proximity to the protests. They pointed to recent negative articles in local newspapers as evidence of bias, suggesting the publications may have been influenced by the plaintiffs or their associates.
Energy Transfer has not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the newspaper articles. As of Sunday, the North Dakota Supreme Court had not ruled on the petition. The trial, scheduled to last five weeks, began on Wednesday in Mandan, North Dakota, just across the Missouri River from Bismarck and near the protest sites.
Judge’s Role and Testimonies
The case is being heard by Judge James D. Gion, who is typically based in Stark County. According to court documents, Judge Gion acknowledged that he might disqualify himself if he felt unable to remain impartial. Energy Transfer began calling witnesses early in the trial, including Joey Mahmoud, former Vice President of Energy Transfer, who oversaw the Dakota Access Pipeline project. Mahmoud testified that the pipeline serves a critical purpose, transporting oil from North Dakota’s Bakken fields to Midwest refineries, and emphasized its safety compared to rail or truck transport.
Protests escalated in spring 2016, driven by concerns from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and its allies that the pipeline threatened sacred lands and the tribe’s water supply. Energy Transfer countered these claims by stating it had hired experts to explore the route and found no evidence to support the tribe’s concerns.
Focus on Protest Tactics
Energy Transfer’s legal team also called Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier to testify about law enforcement’s challenges during the protests. Kirchmeier described the influx of protesters and the escalation of conflicts, which required emergency declarations and specialized training for officers. Additionally, former Greenpeace employee Harmony Lambert’s video deposition was shown, in which she detailed her involvement in the protests and Greenpeace’s support, including the distribution of “lockboxes” used by protesters to chain themselves to structures or equipment.
Requests for Online Proceedings
Media organizations, including The New York Times, and a group of left-leaning lawyers have petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court to allow online streaming of the trial. While the lawyers’ petition was rejected, the media’s request remains pending. The trial continues to draw significant attention, with potential implications for Greenpeace’s operations in the U.S. if the organization loses the case and faces hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
