By Juliet Porter.
On February 24th, the trial against Greenpeace, filed by fossil fuel giant Energy Transfer, began in North Dakota. The company is pursuing a $300 million SLAPP suit—short for “strategic lawsuit against public participation”—a legal tactic designed to intimidate and silence activists. This lawsuit specifically targets Greenpeace, one of the most prominent environmental nonprofit organizations in the world, for its role in supporting protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Though the pipeline was completed in 2017, Energy Transfer has strategically revived this legal battle years later, signaling a broader effort to punish environmental activism and deter future opposition. As reported by (Environmental Health News, 2024).
The allegations being pressed by Energy Transfer surround claims that Greenpeace spread information, and even incited illegal activity, during the indigenous-lead protests at the time of the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (MSN, 2025). The DAPL represents a pivotal moment for the environmental justice movement and its advocates in the US. The DAPL protests were led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who opposed the pipeline due to threats to water and sacred lands as reported by (Environmental Health News, 2024).
SLAPP suits like this attempt to silence Indigenous voices and grassroots activism. If Greenpeace loses, it could set a precedent where corporations sue activists into silence, making it harder for communities to fight pollution, climate change, and corporate harm. SLAPP suits weaponize the legal system against those working for climate justice. They represent both a threat to free speech and the right to protest as reported by (Environmental Health News, 2024),
So why now, you might ask? Why would the company wait eight years after the protests and construction occurred to pursue this legal challenge? This is a signal of long-term retaliation against environmental activism. Unfortunately, this incident doesn’t represent an isolated case. Similar lawsuits against climate activists and journalists have been successful in silencing the cries of protest. If Greenpeace loses, it would be a major setback for environmental advocacy. it could set a precedent where corporations sue activists into silence, making it harder for communities to fight pollution, climate change, and corporate harm.
Why Is this Important? This lawsuit is not just about Greenpeace—it’s about the future of environmental activism and the right to protest corporate harm. If Energy Transfer succeeds, it could create a chilling effect, discouraging advocacy groups and frontline communities from speaking out against environmental injustice.
However, the fight for climate justice does not end here. Organizations like The Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ) will continue to support activists fighting for environmental justice, ensuring that those on the frontlines of environmental defense are not silenced by corporate intimidation. The right to protest is fundamental to environmental justice, and it is through collective action that we can push back against corporate suppression.
Now is the time to stand in solidarity with Greenpeace and sign its open letter to demand the protection of free speech and climate activism .
Background Information: