MANDAN, N.D. (AP) 鈥 A North Dakota jury on Wednesday found Greenpeace liable for defamation and other claims brought by a pipeline company in connection with protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline.
The nine-person jury awarded Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access more than $650 million in damages.
The Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. of defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts.
When asked if Greenpeace plans to appeal, Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha said, 鈥淲e know that this fight is not over.鈥
Following the verdict, Greenpeace's senior legal adviser said the organization's work 鈥渋s never going stop,鈥 when asked if the amount of damages would end Greenpeace in the United States.
鈥淭hat鈥檚 the really important message today, and we鈥檙e just walking out and we鈥檙e going to get together and figure out what our next steps are,鈥 Padmanabha said.
The organization said it plans to appeal the decision.
Energy Transfer called the verdict a 鈥渨in鈥 for residents of Mandan, North Dakota, and across the state.
鈥淲hile we are pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace,鈥 the company said in a statement to The Associated Press.
The company, who previously said the lawsuit was about Greenpeace not following the law and not free speech, also called the verdict a win for 鈥淎mericans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law.鈥
The case reaches back to protests in 2016 and 2017 against the and its Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe鈥檚 reservation. For years the tribe has opposed the line as a risk to its water supply. The multistate pipeline has been transporting oil since mid-2017.
Plaintiffs鈥 attorney Trey Cox has said Greenpeace carried out a scheme to stop the pipeline鈥檚 construction. During opening statements, he alleged Greenpeace paid outsiders to come into the area and protest, sent blockade supplies, organized or led protester trainings, and made untrue statements about the project to stop it.
Attorneys for the Greenpeace entities said there is no evidence to the claims, that Greenpeace employees had little or no involvement in the protests and the organizations had nothing to do with Energy Transfer鈥檚 delays in construction or refinancing.
Greenpeace representatives have said the lawsuit is a critical test of First Amendment free speech and protest rights and could threaten the organization鈥檚 future.
