A federal court in North Dakota recently dismissed a lawsuit brought by an energy company against Greenpeace and individual protesters. (Photo: Speak Freely/ACLU)
The Dakota Access Pipeline Company Is Abusing the Judicial System to Silence Dissent
Protesters and advocacy groups have the right to freely and vigorously criticize their opponents, even when their speech threatens to subvert corporate interests
In a win for free speech, a federal court in North Dakota recently dismissed a baseless $900 million lawsuit brought by the Dakota Access Pipeline company against Greenpeace and a number of individual protesters. The company should have learned its lesson. Instead, it refiled the case in state court.
These cases offer a grim reminder of our responsibility to hold companies accountable when they abuse the judicial system with stunt litigation transparently designed to intimidate and bankrupt their critics.
These meritless cases are textbook examples of "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation," or SLAPPs. This tactic is increasingly used by corporations to silence critics with expensive legal actions.
The pipeline company, Energy Transfer LP, filed the lawsuit in 2017 against Greenpeace organizations and others, including individual Standing Rock protesters. It relied on defamation law and the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, a federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity.
The company alleged that Greenpeace and the other defendants, in criticizing the pipeline's potential environmental and cultural damage to the nearby Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, engaged in a criminal network of fraud and misinformation. The 231-page complaint described the defendants as a "network of not-for-profits and rogue eco-terrorist groups."
The lawsuit rested on two theories, neither of which passed muster in federal court. First, the complaint argued that Greenpeace and the other defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the public and defame the company. Second, it claimed that the defendants were engaged in an "illegal Enterprise" targeting the company and should therefore be held liable for any illegal actions committed by those who simply shared a common opposition to the pipeline.
These accusations, wild as they seem, would set a dangerous precedent if accepted: Not only might a different decision bankrupt defendants like Greenpeace--due to both litigation expenses and damages--and destroy the lives of the Standing Rock activists, but it could also erode the right of nonprofit organizations to speak out against corporate actions. Further, acceptance of the company's legal arguments would make any advocacy group potentially liable for the conduct of its supporters and fellow travelers, even without any evidence of direct coordination.
The ACLU, along with a coalition of public interest groups, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Greenpeace and its partners and the individual Standing Rock protesters. We argued that Energy Transfer's claims violate the First Amendment, which prohibits companies from suing critics out of existence just because their message is anathema to the corporate interests of the plaintiff. We also told the court that the RICO Act can't be manipulated and exploited to suppress constitutionally protected speech.
The judge agreed and dismissed the case. His order concluded that "donating to people whose cause you support does not create a RICO enterprise," and that "posting articles written by people with similar beliefs does not create a RICO enterprise." The opinion chided the company for its hyperbolic complaint and vindicated the activists and organizations that sought to speak out on matters of serious public concern.
Last week, in a pigheaded display of its commitment to dragging Greenpeace, its partners, and the Standing Rock protesters through an expensive and unjustified lawsuit for as long as possible, the company refiled the case in state court. This new lawsuit rehashes the same, tired arguments that it presented in federal court, but relies exclusively on state laws.
While the federal court ruled in favor of free speech and common sense, and while the re-filed version of the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed, these cases represent an alarming trend in the suppression of public activism. That's why the ACLU joined a number of other public interest groups in founding the Protect the Protest Task Force, a coalition dedicated to fighting SLAPP cases.
These unfounded lawsuits attempt to abuse the judicial system in order to suppress constitutionally protected expression by intimidating activists and advocates. The Protect the Protest Task Force provides support for organizations and individuals targeted as a result of their public interest advocacy.
Protesters and advocacy groups have the right to freely and vigorously criticize their opponents, even when their speech threatens to subvert corporate interests. These cases offer a grim reminder of our responsibility to hold companies accountable when they abuse the judicial system with stunt litigation transparently designed to intimidate and bankrupt their critics.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
In a win for free speech, a federal court in North Dakota recently dismissed a baseless $900 million lawsuit brought by the Dakota Access Pipeline company against Greenpeace and a number of individual protesters. The company should have learned its lesson. Instead, it refiled the case in state court.
These cases offer a grim reminder of our responsibility to hold companies accountable when they abuse the judicial system with stunt litigation transparently designed to intimidate and bankrupt their critics.
These meritless cases are textbook examples of "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation," or SLAPPs. This tactic is increasingly used by corporations to silence critics with expensive legal actions.
The pipeline company, Energy Transfer LP, filed the lawsuit in 2017 against Greenpeace organizations and others, including individual Standing Rock protesters. It relied on defamation law and the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, a federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity.
The company alleged that Greenpeace and the other defendants, in criticizing the pipeline's potential environmental and cultural damage to the nearby Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, engaged in a criminal network of fraud and misinformation. The 231-page complaint described the defendants as a "network of not-for-profits and rogue eco-terrorist groups."
The lawsuit rested on two theories, neither of which passed muster in federal court. First, the complaint argued that Greenpeace and the other defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the public and defame the company. Second, it claimed that the defendants were engaged in an "illegal Enterprise" targeting the company and should therefore be held liable for any illegal actions committed by those who simply shared a common opposition to the pipeline.
These accusations, wild as they seem, would set a dangerous precedent if accepted: Not only might a different decision bankrupt defendants like Greenpeace--due to both litigation expenses and damages--and destroy the lives of the Standing Rock activists, but it could also erode the right of nonprofit organizations to speak out against corporate actions. Further, acceptance of the company's legal arguments would make any advocacy group potentially liable for the conduct of its supporters and fellow travelers, even without any evidence of direct coordination.
The ACLU, along with a coalition of public interest groups, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Greenpeace and its partners and the individual Standing Rock protesters. We argued that Energy Transfer's claims violate the First Amendment, which prohibits companies from suing critics out of existence just because their message is anathema to the corporate interests of the plaintiff. We also told the court that the RICO Act can't be manipulated and exploited to suppress constitutionally protected speech.
The judge agreed and dismissed the case. His order concluded that "donating to people whose cause you support does not create a RICO enterprise," and that "posting articles written by people with similar beliefs does not create a RICO enterprise." The opinion chided the company for its hyperbolic complaint and vindicated the activists and organizations that sought to speak out on matters of serious public concern.
Last week, in a pigheaded display of its commitment to dragging Greenpeace, its partners, and the Standing Rock protesters through an expensive and unjustified lawsuit for as long as possible, the company refiled the case in state court. This new lawsuit rehashes the same, tired arguments that it presented in federal court, but relies exclusively on state laws.
While the federal court ruled in favor of free speech and common sense, and while the re-filed version of the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed, these cases represent an alarming trend in the suppression of public activism. That's why the ACLU joined a number of other public interest groups in founding the Protect the Protest Task Force, a coalition dedicated to fighting SLAPP cases.
These unfounded lawsuits attempt to abuse the judicial system in order to suppress constitutionally protected expression by intimidating activists and advocates. The Protect the Protest Task Force provides support for organizations and individuals targeted as a result of their public interest advocacy.
Protesters and advocacy groups have the right to freely and vigorously criticize their opponents, even when their speech threatens to subvert corporate interests. These cases offer a grim reminder of our responsibility to hold companies accountable when they abuse the judicial system with stunt litigation transparently designed to intimidate and bankrupt their critics.
In a win for free speech, a federal court in North Dakota recently dismissed a baseless $900 million lawsuit brought by the Dakota Access Pipeline company against Greenpeace and a number of individual protesters. The company should have learned its lesson. Instead, it refiled the case in state court.
These cases offer a grim reminder of our responsibility to hold companies accountable when they abuse the judicial system with stunt litigation transparently designed to intimidate and bankrupt their critics.
These meritless cases are textbook examples of "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation," or SLAPPs. This tactic is increasingly used by corporations to silence critics with expensive legal actions.
The pipeline company, Energy Transfer LP, filed the lawsuit in 2017 against Greenpeace organizations and others, including individual Standing Rock protesters. It relied on defamation law and the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, a federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity.
The company alleged that Greenpeace and the other defendants, in criticizing the pipeline's potential environmental and cultural damage to the nearby Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, engaged in a criminal network of fraud and misinformation. The 231-page complaint described the defendants as a "network of not-for-profits and rogue eco-terrorist groups."
The lawsuit rested on two theories, neither of which passed muster in federal court. First, the complaint argued that Greenpeace and the other defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the public and defame the company. Second, it claimed that the defendants were engaged in an "illegal Enterprise" targeting the company and should therefore be held liable for any illegal actions committed by those who simply shared a common opposition to the pipeline.
These accusations, wild as they seem, would set a dangerous precedent if accepted: Not only might a different decision bankrupt defendants like Greenpeace--due to both litigation expenses and damages--and destroy the lives of the Standing Rock activists, but it could also erode the right of nonprofit organizations to speak out against corporate actions. Further, acceptance of the company's legal arguments would make any advocacy group potentially liable for the conduct of its supporters and fellow travelers, even without any evidence of direct coordination.
The ACLU, along with a coalition of public interest groups, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Greenpeace and its partners and the individual Standing Rock protesters. We argued that Energy Transfer's claims violate the First Amendment, which prohibits companies from suing critics out of existence just because their message is anathema to the corporate interests of the plaintiff. We also told the court that the RICO Act can't be manipulated and exploited to suppress constitutionally protected speech.
The judge agreed and dismissed the case. His order concluded that "donating to people whose cause you support does not create a RICO enterprise," and that "posting articles written by people with similar beliefs does not create a RICO enterprise." The opinion chided the company for its hyperbolic complaint and vindicated the activists and organizations that sought to speak out on matters of serious public concern.
Last week, in a pigheaded display of its commitment to dragging Greenpeace, its partners, and the Standing Rock protesters through an expensive and unjustified lawsuit for as long as possible, the company refiled the case in state court. This new lawsuit rehashes the same, tired arguments that it presented in federal court, but relies exclusively on state laws.
While the federal court ruled in favor of free speech and common sense, and while the re-filed version of the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed, these cases represent an alarming trend in the suppression of public activism. That's why the ACLU joined a number of other public interest groups in founding the Protect the Protest Task Force, a coalition dedicated to fighting SLAPP cases.
These unfounded lawsuits attempt to abuse the judicial system in order to suppress constitutionally protected expression by intimidating activists and advocates. The Protect the Protest Task Force provides support for organizations and individuals targeted as a result of their public interest advocacy.
Protesters and advocacy groups have the right to freely and vigorously criticize their opponents, even when their speech threatens to subvert corporate interests. These cases offer a grim reminder of our responsibility to hold companies accountable when they abuse the judicial system with stunt litigation transparently designed to intimidate and bankrupt their critics.