Greenpeace is vowing continued legal action after a North Dakota jury found it liable for $660 million in damages relating to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
The company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, Energy Transfer, sued Greenpeace for defamation, trespassing, nuisance and civil conspiracy, among other things. Greenpeace has previously said that an unfavorable ruling would “shut down Greenpeace USA.” The organization now says it plans to appeal the outcome.
“Although a jury of nine people in North Dakota has decided that Greenpeace entities are liable for over $660 million in damages, this isn’t over,” Greenpeace said in a statement.
“We’re going to appeal. And we’re prepared to fight this all the way to victory,” the organization said. “We absolutely believe in our legal defense. We believe the law is fully on our side. We believe in what we did at Standing Rock, and that ultimately we will prevail against this meritless lawsuit.”
EPA ADMINISTRATOR ROLLS BACK 31 BIDEN-ERA REGULATIONS
“We’ve fought Energy Transfer’s lawsuits for more than seven years. Every step of the way, we’ve emphasized that these types of lawsuits — intended to silence and shut down critics — are part of a growing national attack on our First Amendment rights,” Greenpeace argued.
PRO-ENERGY GROUP URGES AG BONDI TO PROBE BIDEN’S AUTOPEN ON CRUCIAL DECISIONS THAT DEVASTATED ECONOMY
The organization said it will announce more about its plans to combat the lawsuit during a press conference Thursday night.
The case stems from protests in 2016 and 2017 against the multi-state Dakota Access oil pipeline. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe opposed the project, saying it posed a risk to its water supply and imposed harm on their land.
NEW BIDEN WATER HEATER BAN WILL DRIVE UP ENERGY PRICES FOR POOR, SENIORS: EXPERT
Thousands of protesters camped for months near the Standing Rock Reservation, where the pipeline crosses underneath the Missouri River.
The pipeline transports about 5% of the U.S.’ daily oil production. It started transporting oil in mid-2017.
Free speech and environmental advocates have criticized the trial, saying the lawsuit was about silencing protest and meant to bankrupt opponents.
Read the full article here
