SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
north dakota
Case That Could Inflict 'Financial Ruin' on Greenpeace Heads to Trial
"This fight is bigger than Greenpeace. This lawsuit is a blatant attempt to silence critics and hide destructive practices," said the campaign director of Greenpeace USA.
Feb 20, 2025
With a high-stakes court trial between the environmental organization Greenpeace and the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline, Energy Transfer, set to begin Monday, the green group earlier this month lit up multiple locations in both Dallas and Washington, D.C. with giant projections that displayed messages such as, "You Can't Put a Movement on Trial" and, "Big Oil Is Suing Greenpeace."
The Dallas-based oil and gas company Energy Transfer—whose executive chairman Warren Kelcy is a donor to U.S President Donald Trump, according to the The Guardian—has accused Greenpeace and other activists of inciting protests that took place against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017, as well as spreading misinformation about and vandalizing the project.
The lawsuit names Greenpeace International and two U.S. Greenpeace entities. Greenpeace maintains that the protests were directed by Indigenous leaders, not Greenpeace.
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe and its allies said the pipeline, which has been in operation since 2017 and carries crude oil from the Brakken oil fields in North Dakota to Illinois, would endanger the water supply for the reservation and violate the tribe's right to its land.
If successful, the $300 million lawsuit could inflict "financial ruin" on the group, according to Greenpeace. This would have a chilling effect on the organization's work, but leaders within the group have also cast it as an attack on the environmental movement and free speech more broadly.
"This fight is bigger than Greenpeace. This lawsuit is a blatant attempt to silence critics and hide destructive practices," said Rolf Skar, the campaign director of Greenpeace USA, in a Tuesday statement.
Of the projections in D.C. and Dallas, Skar said they "are a testament to that resilience, shining a light on the truth and reminding everyone fighting for a just and livable future that we will not back down."
In a similar vein, Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace's deputy general counsel, toldThe Guardian that "Energy Transfer and the fossil fuel industry do not understand the difference between entities and movements. You can't bankrupt the movement. You can't silence the movement. There will be a backlash and a price to pay when you pursue these kinds of tactics."
"People power is more powerful," she added.
The case has also been decried as an example of what are known as "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation"—or "SLAPP" lawsuits, meritless cases whose goal it to bankrupt civil society groups and nonprofits with years of litigation and legal fees.
Greenpeace International, which is based in Amsterdam, has been the first group to initiate a lawsuit under the European Union's new anti-SLAPP directive. The group has sued in a Dutch court to recoup losses it has incurred as a result of its legal fight with Energy Transfer.
Of its bid under the anti-SLAPP directive, Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel at Greenpeace International, said in early February that "if we prevail, it will send a message to corporate bullies that the age of impunity is ending. That would be a boost for civil society in the E.U., and point to solutions for those battling the SLAPP phenomenon elsewhere."
There is no federal anti-SLAPP law on the books in the United States.
There has also been intrigue surrounding the circumstances of the upcoming trial in North Dakota. Greenpeace unsuccessfully sought to have the case moved to a different court over concerns of potential jury bias. The Guardian and the local outlet the North Dakota Monitor have reported on mysterious mailers that were sent to local residents that contain written material slanted against Dakota Access Pipeline protestors and in favor of Energy Transfer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I Am Finally Free': Leonard Peltier Released From Prison After Nearly 50 Years
"They may have imprisoned me but they never took my spirit!" said Peltier. "I am finally going home."
Feb 18, 2025
Indigenous rights and criminal justice reform advocates on Tuesday celebrated as Native American political activist Leonard Peltier, who has maintained his innocence for nearly 50 years since being sentenced to life in prison for the killing of two FBI agents, walked out of a high-security prison in Florida and headed home to North Dakota.
"Today I am finally free," said Peltier in a statement to the Native news outlet Indianz.com. "They may have imprisoned me but they never took my spirit! Thank you to all my supporters throughout the world who fought for my freedom. I am finally going home. I look forward to seeing my friends, my family, and my community. It's a good day today."
Advocates for Peltier, who is 80 years old, have long called for a presidential pardon and celebrated in January when former President Joe Biden announced he was commuting Peltier's sentence. He will serve out the rest of his sentence in home confinement.
Nick Tilsen, CEO of the advocacy group NDN Collective, noted that before his conviction Peltier was one of thousands of Indigenous children who were taken from their families and sent to boarding schools, where many suffered abuse.
"He hasn't really had a home since he was taken away to boarding school," Tilsen told The Associated Press. "So he is excited to be at home and paint and have grandkids running around."
"Leonard's step outside the prison walls today marks a step toward his long overdue freedom and a step toward reconciliation with Native Americans."
Peltier, an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians in North Dakota, was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and given two consecutive life sentences after prosecutors accused him of shooting two FBI agents at point-blank range during a confrontation at the Oglala Sioux Indian Reservation in Pine Ridge, South Dakota in 1975.
Peltier has always maintained that he did fire a gun during the confrontation, but from a distance and in self-defense. A witness who claimed that she saw Peltier shoot the agents later said she had been coerced into testifying and recanted her testimony.
Lynn Crooks, the federal chief prosecutor in the case, later admitted that the government "knew we hadn't proved" that Peltier was guilty.
The American Indian Movement, which fought for Native American treaty rights and tribal self-determination and in which Peltier was active, was subject to FBI surveillance and harassment when the shooting took place.
Kevin Sharp, an attorney and former federal judge who has represented Peltier and filed numerous clemency petitions for him, said the violent confrontation in 1975 was "unquestionably" a tragedy that was "only further compounded by the nearly 50 years of wrongful incarceration for Leonard Peltier."
"Misconduct by the government in the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Peltier has been a stain on our system of justice," said Sharp. "Leonard's step outside the prison walls today marks a step toward his long overdue freedom and a step toward reconciliation with Native Americans."
The AP reported that Peltier left USP Coleman in Sumterville, Florida in an SUV on Tuesday morning and didn't stop to speak to members of the press who were gathered outside.
Amnesty International, which has long campaigned for Peltier and considers him a political prisoner, applauded his release.
"Leonard Peltier's release is the right thing to do given the serious and ongoing human rights concerns about the fairness of his trial, his nearly 50 years behind bars, his health, and his age," Paul O'Brien, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said in a statement. "While we welcome his release from prison, he should not be restricted to home confinement."
Tilsen said that Peltier's "wrongful incarceration represented the oppression of Indigenous Peoples everywhere."
"Peltier's liberation is invaluable in and of itself," said Tilsen. "His release today is a symbol of our collective power and inherent freedom."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Win for Reproductive Freedom,' North Dakota Judge Strikes Down Abortion Ban
"I look forward to a new future in North Dakota and hope our lawmakers will finally give up on their crusade to force pregnancy on people against their will," said one advocate.
Sep 12, 2024
Two days after Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump claimed that "every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative" wanted the federal right to abortion care to be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, a North Dakota judge became the latest on Thursday to strike down a state-level abortion ban, saying it violated residents' constitutional rights.
"The North Dakota Constitution guarantees each individual, including women, the fundamental right to make medical judgments affecting his or her bodily integrity, health, and autonomy, in consultation with a chosen healthcare provider free from government interference," wrote Judge Bruce Romanick, a District Court judge. "This section necessarily and more specifically protects a woman's right to procreative autonomy—including to seek and obtain a previability abortion."
The near-total ban on abortion care will be officially blocked in the coming days, in a move that the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) said could ultimately help restore access for people across the Midwest, as abortion care is currently banned in South Dakota and heavily restricted in nearby states including Nebraska and Iowa.
Meetra Mehdizadeh, a staff attorney at CRR, which filed a lawsuit against North Dakota's ban in 2023, said the ruling "is a win for reproductive freedom, and means it is now much safer to be pregnant in North Dakota," but warned that Republican lawmakers who passed the law have already done damage to pregnant people in the state that will take time to reverse.
"The damage that North Dakota's extreme abortion bans have done cannot be repaired overnight," said Mehdizadeh. "There are no abortion clinics left in North Dakota. That means most people seeking an abortion still won't be able to get one, even though it is legal. Clinics are medical facilities that need to acquire doctors, staff, equipment—they can take years to open, like most healthcare centers. The destructive impacts of abortion bans are felt long after they are struck down."
CRR argued in the case that the ban was too vague for medical providers to determine when an exception would be allowed for a pregnant patient whose life or health was at risk.
"This left physicians who provided abortions with the threat of having to defend their decision in court if someone were to question the provider's judgment," said the group. "Violating the ban was considered a class C felony, punishable by a maximum of five years of imprisonment, a fine of $10,000, or both."
Among the plaintiffs represented by CRR was Red River Women's Clinic, which was North Dakota's sole abortion care provider until a prior ban forced it to relocate from Fargo to Moorhead, Minnesota, where abortion has remained legal following the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade.
"Today's decision gives me hope. I feel like the court heard us when we raised our voices against a law that not only ran counter to our state constitution, but was too vague for physicians to interpret and which prevented them from providing the high quality care that our communities are entitled to," said Tammi Kromenaker, director of the clinic. "Abortion is lifesaving healthcare; it should not be a crime. I look forward to a new future in North Dakota and hope our lawmakers will finally give up on their crusade to force pregnancy on people against their will."
Since Roe was overturned in 2022, numerous women have shared stories of being denied abortion care after suffering complications—including some that were life-threatening.
Judges in states including Wyoming, Utah, and Montana have blocked abortion bans in recent years, and voters have rejected anti-abortion ballot measures and approved ones that support the right to abortion in states including Kentucky, Kansas, Ohio, and Michigan.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular