SLAPP lawsuit violated Greenpeace’s rights to a fair trial, lawyers say

An independent committee of human rights lawyers and scholars says the $667 million verdict against Greenpeace was the product of a fundamentally unfair trial, citing judicial bias, a tainted jury and a “wildly exorbitant” damages award unsupported by evidence.

A 40-page report released by the Independent Trial Monitoring Committee concluded that Energy Transfer’s lawsuit violated Greenpeace’s rights to a fair trial, equality before the law, free expression, association and assembly—and infringed on the sovereignty of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

The committee convened in North Dakota in February and March 2025 to observe all 18 days of the trial, applying standards set out in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s trial monitoring manual.

Its members include Martin Garbus, a civil rights lawyer who has represented Nelson Mandela and Cesar Chavez; Steven Donziger, who won a $9.5 billion judgment against Chevron on behalf of Indigenous communities in Ecuador; and Ayisha Siddiqa, a U.N. climate adviser named to Time magazine’s Women of the Year list.

“The Committee finds that through a combination of judicial incompetence, broader inadequacies of the North Dakota legal system, and active manipulation of that system by ET, Greenpeace was denied its right to a fair trial,” the report states.

A jury pool ‘fundamentally biased’

The committee found that Morton County, population roughly 33,000, was structurally incapable of providing an impartial jury.

The county is home to the largest oil refinery in North Dakota, and roughly a third of prospective jurors had a financial interest in the oil and gas industry.

In a pretrial survey, every resident contacted was aware of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, and 97% said they could not serve as fair and impartial jurors.

Energy Transfer compounded the problem, the report says, by donating $3 million to the City of Mandan while litigation was pending and by running a paid advertising campaign that cast the company favorably and the protests as disruptive.

Households also received a fake “independent” newspaper called the Central North Dakota News, printed out of state, containing articles praising Energy Transfer.

Judge James Gion blocked Greenpeace’s request to investigate the campaign’s funding.

“Based on these facts and ET’s strenuous opposition to discovery on this point, the Committee assumes that ET or an associated entity organized the paid influence campaign,” the report states.

Of the nine jurors seated, seven had direct ties to the oil and gas industry. One juror’s family owned 15 oil wells. Another said she would be “uncomfortable finding against the pipeline industry.”

Another said Greenpeace “would be starting at a disadvantage.” No Native American, Indigenous person or person of color was seated, despite Indigenous rights being central to the case.

“It’s inconceivable that this jury could do anything other than ultimately enter a judgment on behalf of the plaintiff,” Garbus said after jury selection.

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) has experienced multiple spills and leaks since its construction began, most notably a 1.4-million-gallon drilling fluid spill in 2017 and several smaller operational leaks tracked by the E&E News Report and the Harvard Environmental & Energy Law Program.

Judge admitted inexperience, barred defense evidence

The committee documented a pattern of rulings that favored Energy Transfer. Judge Gion barred Greenpeace from presenting evidence of the company’s pipeline safety record—including spills that led to federal debarment—even as Energy Transfer touted its safety record to the jury.

He excluded the Foley Hoag report, commissioned by DAPL investors, which found the company failed to adhere to international best practices, despite Energy Transfer citing it in its own complaint.

Judge Gion also barred Greenpeace from using the term “SLAPP” or explaining its meaning to the jury, and barred evidence that private security agents for Energy Transfer infiltrated protests under false pretenses.

At the same time, the judge acknowledged in open court that he had no experience with civil jury trials involving complex constitutional issues.

“Judicial bias appeared to the Committee to be an issue in the Greenpeace case from the beginning,” the report states.

All 12 judges in the district where Energy Transfer filed the case recused themselves due to conflicts of interest stemming from hundreds of prior Standing Rock cases.

‘Inequality of arms’ and ethically questionable tactics

The committee found that Energy Transfer’s legal team from Gibson Dunn regularly outnumbered Greenpeace’s attorneys, sometimes five to one, and exploited that advantage.

On multiple occasions, Gibson Dunn provided Greenpeace with less than 24 hours to review edited video depositions, then complained to the judge that Greenpeace was causing delays.

Monitors also observed Energy Transfer’s lead counsel, Trey Cox, approach Judge Gion ex parte during a break—after pausing to confirm no Greenpeace attorney was present—to press for a faster ruling.

Damages ‘pulled out of thin air’

The committee called the $667 million award “wildly exorbitant and broadly unsupported by evidence.”

Energy Transfer’s damages experts aggregated all unplanned costs across the entire pipeline, including costs incurred before any Greenpeace staff arrived at Standing Rock and in other states, and attributed them entirely to Greenpeace.

The report notes that only six Greenpeace staff were on site at protests attended by tens of thousands of people.

The verdict form lacked key definitions, allowed double damages for a single action and failed to differentiate between the three Greenpeace defendants.

A SLAPP and an attack on Indigenous sovereignty

The committee concluded the lawsuit meets the international definition of a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP—litigation used to suppress public participation and critical reporting on matters of public interest. North Dakota is one of 11 states without anti-SLAPP protections.

“ET’s SLAPP attempts to characterize Greenpeace’s legitimate human rights advocacy as unlawful,” the report states.

The committee also found the lawsuit violates the rights of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, noting that Energy Transfer first sued tribal leaders, then pivoted to holding a non-Indigenous organization responsible for an Indigenous-led movement.

Energy Transfer CEO Kelcy Warren has said his “primary objective” was to “send a message,” and told an interviewer that activists “should be removed from the gene pool.”

Recommendations

The committee called on the North Dakota judiciary to vacate the judgment, award Greenpeace its legal fees, fine Energy Transfer and its law firm to deter future SLAPPs, and release a full transcript of the trial—which the court has never produced.

It also urged North Dakota to enact an anti-SLAPP statute and to investigate Gibson Dunn attorneys for ethics violations.

Greenpeace has filed post-trial motions and a pending appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

The organization is also pursuing a parallel case in the Netherlands, where a Dutch court ruled in June that it has jurisdiction over Greenpeace’s counter-suit.

“We will be requesting a new trial and, failing that, will appeal the judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota,” said Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International general counsel.