Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US filed on 27 March 2026 a motion for a new trial in North Dakota District Court. This demand for justice follows the absurd and flawed US$ 345 million judgment issued by the same court in Energy Transfer's SLAPP lawsuit against the Greenpeace parties returned on 27 February 2026. Energy Transfer's back-to-back SLAPP lawsuits are attempts to erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock Movement, punish solidarity with the ongoing resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline, and intimidate environmental activists from speaking out against Big Oil companies.
In regard to the Greenpeace defendants' motion for a new trial, Greenpeace International General Counsel Kristin Casper said:
"Our motion for a new trial should be granted to prevent one of the largest miscarriages of justice in North Dakota's history. We are demanding the court right the wrongs committed at trial and to ensure the rights and freedoms promised under the US constitution are protected.
"There is no question the Greenpeace defendants were denied a fair trial - even a concise summary of the errors and injustices that marred the trial runs to over 100 pages. Greenpeace will not rest until justice is served and Big Oil can no longer use and abuse the legal system in North Dakota or anywhere else."
Among the numerous egregious flaws documented in the motion for a new trial are:
- The Greenpeace defendants could not receive a fair and impartial trial in Morton County.
- Seven out of nine jurors that decided the case had clear biases due to fossil fuel industry ties, experiences with the Standing Rock protests, and/or preexisting negative views of the Greenpeace defendants.
- Despite the fact that thousands of individuals and hundreds of organisations were involved in actions at Standing Rock and speaking out against DAPL, and North Dakota law clearly requiring damages to be split among everyone who contributed to alleged harms, the jury and the court assigned 100% of the claimed damages to the Greenpeace defendants.
- The jury's verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence on each and every count.
- The jury verdict was tainted by the inclusion of inadmissible, prejudicial information.
- The jury was improperly prevented from hearing relevant, admissible evidence that was favorable to the Greenpeace defendants.
- The jury was provided erroneous and incomplete instructions and a flawed verdict form.
The motion can be accessed here.
