The opening phase of Greenpeace's trial over a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer regarding protests at the Dakota Access Pipeline marks a challenging moment for the environmental group. Presenting their case in Morton County, North Dakota, Greenpeace's lawyers expressed concerns about securing a fair trial, prompting them to file a motion with the state's Supreme Court to shift the venue.
The protests, which targeted the Dakota Access Pipeline from 2016, became a focal point for thousands advocating against oil transportation, especially with the involvement of Native American activists. Many local residents faced disruptions for over a year, leading to heated confrontations between demonstrators and law enforcement officials.
Energy Transfer, which accused Greenpeace of manipulating the protests to hinder pipeline progress, filed its lawsuit in 2019. The oil company claims the organization’s actions led to damage, defamation, and physical assaults on workers and property.
In response, Greenpeace insists it had a minimal role in the protests and emphasizes adherence to nonviolent methods. Their recent legal maneuver highlights their skepticism towards the jury's neutrality, asserting that the proximity of the protests has inevitably influenced jurors. The call to move the trial to Fargo, where a larger, possibly less biased jury pool could be drawn, underscores the strategic difficulties Greenpeace faces in this contentious legal environment.
The protests, which targeted the Dakota Access Pipeline from 2016, became a focal point for thousands advocating against oil transportation, especially with the involvement of Native American activists. Many local residents faced disruptions for over a year, leading to heated confrontations between demonstrators and law enforcement officials.
Energy Transfer, which accused Greenpeace of manipulating the protests to hinder pipeline progress, filed its lawsuit in 2019. The oil company claims the organization’s actions led to damage, defamation, and physical assaults on workers and property.
In response, Greenpeace insists it had a minimal role in the protests and emphasizes adherence to nonviolent methods. Their recent legal maneuver highlights their skepticism towards the jury's neutrality, asserting that the proximity of the protests has inevitably influenced jurors. The call to move the trial to Fargo, where a larger, possibly less biased jury pool could be drawn, underscores the strategic difficulties Greenpeace faces in this contentious legal environment.
