North Dakota courtroom becomes a battleground as legal heavyweights rally to defend free speech and environmental justice in historic case pitting corporate greed against climate activists
In what legal experts are calling one of the most egregious abuses of the judicial system in U.S. history, Dallas-based oil tycoon Kelcy Warren and his company, Energy Transfer, the operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), are pushing forward with a controversial lawsuit against Greenpeace.
The case, widely denounced as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), is seen as a brazen attempt to silence climate activists and crush dissent against the fossil fuel industry.
A coalition of prominent attorneys and human rights advocates is stepping in to monitor the trial, aiming to expose what they describe as a corporate assault on free speech and environmental justice.
The lawsuit, filed in 2019, accuses Greenpeace of defamation and interfering with Energy Transfer’s business operations following the Indigenous-led protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) in 2016–2017.
Critics argue the case is nothing more than a thinly veiled retaliation against Greenpeace for its role in supporting the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other activists who fought to protect sacred lands and water sources from the pipeline’s construction.
A Who’s Who of legal titans takes a stand
The trial monitoring team includes some of the most respected names in civil rights and environmental law, including:
- Marty Garbus, the legendary attorney who has represented figures like Nelson Mandela and César Chávez.
- Steven Donziger, the human rights lawyer famously targeted by Chevron after winning a $9 billion pollution verdict in Ecuador.
- Natali Segovia, an Indigenous rights attorney with the Water Protector Legal Collective.
- Jeanne Mirer, president of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers.
- Terry Collingsworth, International Rights Advocates founder known for holding corporations like Nestle and Tesla accountable for human rights abuses.
The group also includes law students from Georgetown and Columbia, as well as other human rights experts, all united in their mission to ensure transparency and fairness in a case that could set a dangerous precedent for free speech and corporate accountability.
“This is corporate thuggery masquerading as litigation,” said Garbus. “Energy Transfer is using the courts to bully Greenpeace and intimidate anyone who dares to challenge their destructive practices. It’s a disgrace to the legal system.”
“In my six decades of practice, I’ve seen many abuses of the legal system, and this case raises serious concerns,” said Garbus, who has represented Nelson Mandela, César Chávez, Václav Havel, and Daniel Ellsberg.
The trial will be closely watched by the monitoring team, which includes Nadia Ahmad, an international human rights professor at Yale Law School; Scott Wilson Badenoch, a member of the Environmental Justice Committee of the American Bar Association; Paul Paz y Miño, deputy director of Amazon Watch; Ayisha Siddiqa, 2023 Time Woman of the Year and UCLA law student; Wade McMullen, former counsel to the Robert F. Kennedy human rights group; Aaron Marr Page, a human rights law professor at the University of Iowa; and Kip Hale, an international atrocity crimes attorney based in Europe.
Their collective expertise underscores the significance of this case as a pivotal moment for environmental justice and free speech.
A pattern of corporate misconduct
Energy Transfer, led by billionaire Kelcy Warren—a major donor to former President Donald Trump and Republican candidates—has a long history of environmental violations and unethical behavior.
In 2022, the company was barred from federal contracts after being convicted of 48 criminal charges related to leaking drilling fluids into Pennsylvania’s drinking water.
Despite this track record, Warren has turned the tables by accusing Greenpeace of being the villain.
The lawsuit alleges that Greenpeace incited “terrorist acts” during the DAPL protests—a claim that legal experts have dismissed as baseless and defamatory.
“This is a manufactured narrative designed to vilify activists and distract from Energy Transfer’s own crimes,” said Donziger. “It’s a classic tactic of the fossil fuel industry: when you can’t win the argument, you attack the messenger.”
The trial, set to begin on February 24 in Mandan, North Dakota, has already raised serious concerns about judicial fairness. Judge James Gion, who is presiding over the case, has been accused of favoring Energy Transfer at every turn. Key issues include:
- Restricted Public Access: Judge Gion has limited courtroom seating and denied requests to livestream the proceedings, effectively shielding the trial from public scrutiny.
- Sealed Documents: Thousands of pages of evidence detailing Energy Transfer’s history of oil spills and leaks have been sealed, preventing the public from seeing the full extent of the company’s environmental harm.
- Tainted Jury Pool: Energy Transfer allegedly distributed a pro-industry “newspaper” to local households, seemingly to influence potential jurors. Judge Gion has refused to allow Greenpeace to investigate the matter further.
“This is not a fair trial—it’s a sham,” said Segovia. “The judge’s actions suggest a blatant disregard for due process and transparency. The public deserves to know the truth about what’s happening in that courtroom.”
The case against Greenpeace is part of a growing trend of fossil fuel companies using the courts to target environmental organizations.
SLAPP suits, which are designed to drain resources and silence critics, have become a favored weapon of corporations seeking to avoid accountability.
Observers say the stakes in this case are particularly high, as it could set a precedent for how far corporations can go in suppressing dissent.
“This isn’t just about Greenpeace—it’s about the future of the climate justice movement,” said Mirer. “If Energy Transfer succeeds, it will embolden other corporations to use the courts as a weapon against activists. We cannot let that happen.”
The outcome of this trial could have far-reaching implications for free speech, environmental justice, and corporate accountability.
As the fossil fuel industry continues to wreak havoc on the planet, the need for robust advocacy has never been greater. But if corporations like Energy Transfer are allowed to weaponize the legal system, the voices of those fighting for a sustainable future could be silenced.
“This case is a test of our democracy,” said Garbus. “Will we allow corporations to dictate the terms of public discourse, or will we stand up for the right to speak truth to power? The world is watching.”
As the trial begins, the monitoring team vows to shine a light on every twist and turn, ensuring that the public remains informed and that justice—not corporate greed—prevails.