Central ND News

Greenpeace faces a significant legal challenge following a $660 million verdict against it for allegedly orchestrating violent protests at a North Dakota pipeline. The environmental organization describes the jury's decision as a threat to "our rights to peaceful protest and free speech." However, this verdict also raises questions about Greenpeace's tax-exempt status.

Nonprofit organizations must adhere to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules to maintain their tax-exempt status. Engaging in illegal activities can jeopardize this status, as noted by critics like U.S. Rep. Jason Smith, who said, "Everyone has the right to protest, but if it leads to violence and destruction, you must be held accountable."

The central issue for Greenpeace is determining the threshold of lawbreaking that could lead to losing its tax-exempt status. Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a First Amendment expert at Notre Dame Law School, explained that Greenpeace would not necessarily be responsible if an individual wearing its T-shirt broke the law unless they were encouraged or directed by the organization.

In court, Energy Transfer presented evidence that Greenpeace provided financial support and equipment for protests at the pipeline site. This included a $21,000 grant for trainers and equipment such as propane cannisters and "dragon sleeves" used by protesters. Additionally, Greenpeace reportedly spent $10,000 on its "Rolling Sunlight" van for reconnaissance activities at Standing Rock.

Energy Transfer claimed these actions resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in damages due to illegal and violent protests. Consequently, the jury ordered Greenpeace USA entities to pay $660 million. Greenpeace has appealed the decision, arguing it threatens its First Amendment rights and could lead to bankruptcy.

Sushma Raman, Interim Executive Director of Greenpeace Fund, expressed concern over the potential chilling effect on future protests: "It’s easy to see how this win for Energy Transfer could chill speech and silence future protests before they even begin."

The U.S. Supreme Court has previously set precedents regarding tax-exempt status related to public policy violations. In 1983, Bob Jones University lost its IRS exemption due to discriminatory practices against minorities.

The debate continues over whether environmental groups like Greenpeace are crossing lines into illegality during protests against companies they oppose. Prof. Mayer highlighted that while promoting civil disobedience is not charitable or social welfare work, it's rare for organizations to lose their tax-exempt status due to these activities.

Greenpeace's financial situation is precarious with annual revenue of $40 million against a $660 million judgment. The organization's primary mission remains raising awareness about environmental threats.

A similar case in New Zealand involves farmers challenging Greenpeace's charitable status after activists occupied an animal feed warehouse in Port Taranaki over concerns about rainforest destruction linked to palm kernel feed imports.

Despite these challenges, there are no current plans from the Trump Administration to review environmental groups' tax-exempt statuses in the U.S., although Harvard University faces scrutiny over alleged failure to protect students from antisemitic protests.

Information from this article can be found here.