LEILA FADEL, HOST:
A jury in North Dakota says Greenpeace should pay a pipeline company more than $660 million. The verdict for defamation, trespassing and other claims was for Greenpeace's role in protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline almost a decade ago. The case was brought by Energy Transfer, the company that built the pipeline. Mary Steuer is a reporter at the North Dakota Monitor. She's been following the trial, and she joins me now. Good morning.
MARY STEUER: Good morning.
FADEL: So, Mary, 660 million. That's a lot of money. What exactly was Greenpeace found liable for?
STEUER: So the jury found Greenpeace U.S.A. responsible for claims like trespassing, nuisance and essentially depriving Energy Transfer of its property during the protests, as well as aiding and abetting others to do the same. It's a bit tricky because the lawsuit was also against two other Greenpeace organizations, Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund. And those two weren't found responsible for the on-the-ground damages to the pipeline, but the jury did find that all three had defamed Energy Transfer. So Energy Transfer says that Greenpeace made public statements about the pipeline that harmed its reputation, especially with banks and other investors that financed its construction loans. And those statements included that the pipeline encroaches on tribal land, and that Energy Transfer deliberately destroyed sacred cultural burial sites and some other claims.
FADEL: What has Greenpeace said, if anything, since the ruling?
STEUER: So Greenpeace's stance in the suit is that it did support the protests, including through sending supplies and funding nonviolent training for protesters, but that its involvement was very marginal and that it never supported or engaged in the kind of property damage that Energy Transfer says it did. And right after the jury issued its verdict, some attorneys with Greenpeace also reiterated that the movement was led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and that Greenpeace was never a major organizing force on the ground. As for the defamation claims, Greenpeace has maintained that all of the statements that were attributed to it during the lawsuit were circulated by other organizations before it ever said a word, but that also all of the statements were credible.
FADEL: Now, Energy Transfer here is a big winner. What have they said about the verdict?
STEUER: Their attorneys, after the verdict, of course, were very happy. They said that justice had won. And I think they've also kind of maintained throughout the case, and also said afterwards that, you know, the company isn't against protesting, but that they just don't want it to be illegal. And so this was kind of, in their view, a win for the rule of law.
FADEL: So they're saying they don't - they're not against protesting, but they want it to be done legally. Does Greenpeace have the money here to pay this, and how will it impact them, just in the few seconds we have left?
STEUER: Greenpeace has said before that they kind of feared this verdict would sink them. Yesterday afternoon, however, their attorneys gave more of an indirect answer. They said simply that they would keep fighting.
FADEL: Mary Steuer is a reporter at the North Dakota Monitor. Thank you for joining us, Mary.
STEUER: Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
