Closing Arguments to Begin in Energy Transfer’s Lawsuit Against Greenpeace

Closing arguments are set to begin Monday in a lawsuit filed by pipeline company Energy Transfer against environmental advocacy group Greenpeace, the Associated Press reports.

The case, which stems from protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, has sparked debates over free speech, protest rights, and corporate accountability.

Energy Transfer, a Dallas-based company, along with its subsidiary Dakota Access, has accused Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund Inc. of defamation, trespass, nuisance, and other offenses. The company is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, alleging that Greenpeace played a central role in protests that disrupted the pipeline’s construction.

The lawsuit is linked to the 2016 and 2017 demonstrations against the pipeline’s Missouri River crossing near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe and its supporters have long opposed the pipeline, arguing it threatens water resources and sacred sites. Despite the protests, the pipeline has been operational since mid-2017.

Energy Transfer’s legal team, led by attorney Trey Cox, argues that Greenpeace deliberately worked to halt construction. According to Cox, the group:

• Funded and organized protests against the project.
• Sent supplies and resources to protesters.
• Provided intelligence to demonstrators.
• Spread false claims, including an allegation that the company desecrated burial grounds.

Cox claims these actions led to banks pulling their financial support from Energy Transfer, significantly impacting the company.

Greenpeace attorneys, however, deny these allegations, asserting there is no evidence that the organization played a significant role in the protests. They argue that:

• The letter cited by Energy Transfer was signed by hundreds of organizations worldwide, not just Greenpeace.
• No financial institution has testified that it was influenced by Greenpeace.
• The lawsuit is an example of corporations using legal action to silence critics.

Greenpeace has framed the lawsuit as a critical test of free speech and protest rights, warning that a ruling against them could set a dangerous precedent for advocacy groups. Meanwhile, Energy Transfer insists the case is about legal accountability, not free speech.

Following the closing arguments, the jury—composed of nine members and two alternates—will begin deliberations to reach a verdict.