A North Dakota jury has ordered Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million in damages to the oil company Energy Transfer in a significant verdict related to the protests against the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. The jury found Greenpeace liable for claims including defamation and unlawful protest activities, which the company argued disrupted construction efforts.

The verdict marks a major legal setback for the environmental organization, which argues that the ruling raises troubling questions about free speech. Greenpeace plans to appeal the decision, asserting that "Energy Transfer knows we don’t have $660 million. They want our silence, not our money," said Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace USA. The New York Times reported that the protests at Standing Rock, led by the Sioux Tribe, had drawn significant attention to the environmental risks posed by the pipeline.

Energy Transfer’s lead counsel, Trey Cox, claimed that Greenpeace had orchestrated a campaign that included paying for protesters and distributing supplies to obstruct the pipeline’s construction. The jury's verdict confirms the company's allegations that Greenpeace's actions contributed to the economic detriment and disruption experienced during protests from 2016 to 2017.

The jury deliberated for two days before returning with a decision that holds Greenpeace USA responsible for the majority of the damages, approximately $404 million, while Greenpeace Fund Inc. and Greenpeace International are liable for the remaining amounts. This legal battle is emblematic of the ongoing conflict between environmental activism and fossil fuel interests, raising alarms among advocates about the potential chilling effects of such large verdicts on public protest.

Environmental advocates pointed to the ruling as a problematic precedent, akin to a SLAPP lawsuit designed to silence dissent. Jennifer Safstrom, a First Amendment expert, indicated that the verdict could deter future advocacy efforts by imposing significant financial risks on organizations that speak out against large corporations.

Following the verdict, Energy Transfer celebrated the outcome as a victory for the residents of North Dakota who had to deal with the disruptions caused by the protests. The company stated, "While we are pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions, this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota," emphasizing its stance on the distinction between lawful protests and unlawful conduct under the guise of free speech.

Despite the jury’s ruling, Greenpeace maintains that its role in the protests was minimal and that the movement’s leadership came primarily from Native American groups concerned about the impacts of the Dakota Access Pipeline on their water supply and sacred lands. The case is expected to escalate further as Greenpeace fights the verdict in court.

This ruling has prompted broad discussion about the implications for environmental activism and the balance of power between corporations and public advocates in navigating ecological issues. For more information, see NPR and CBS News.