Central ND News

Greenpeace International General Counsel Kristin Casper announced the organization will appeal a North Dakota jury's $660 million verdict if the trial court does not vacate it. She called the case a textbook Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) intended to silence dissent and pledged to challenge the ruling through all available legal avenues.

Casper made the remarks in an interview published on Greenpeace International’s website following a high-profile defamation case brought by Energy Transfer over protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The $660 million jury award is among the largest ever against a nonprofit. Greenpeace argues the verdict was based on legal error, jurisdictional overreach, and the suppression of key evidence. 

The case is part of a broader legal battle over the limits of protest and corporate power, which Greenpeace says it is prepared to fight globally, including in Dutch court.

"The Greenpeace entities in the U.S. have already announced an intention to appeal, in the event that the trial court does not itself overrule the jury's verdict,” said Casper in an official interview. “Greenpeace International is weighing all legal options, including appeal, to challenge this wrongful SLAPP suit by Energy Transfer. We believe we have many and strong grounds for appeal based on how the trial was conducted," said Casper.

According to Legal Newsline, Greenpeace’s tax-exempt status is facing renewed scrutiny after its involvement in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests led to a $660 million jury verdict for damages. Legal experts cited by the outlet note that under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidelines, a nonprofit organization can risk losing its tax-exempt status if it engages in criminal conduct, including trespassing or property destruction. 

While Greenpeace’s status has not been formally revoked, the case has prompted discussion about whether such legal violations warrant a review of its nonprofit protections.

Legal scholars have raised concerns about Greenpeace's litigation strategy, particularly given its confrontational protest methods. A 2025 article in Verfassungsblog discusses how Energy Transfer's lawsuit against Greenpeace is characterized as a SLAPP. The article notes that such legal actions may undermine advocacy organizations' legitimacy by blurring lines between protest and provocation.

"This isn't just a fight for Greenpeace defendants: it's a fight about the protection of fundamental rights for everyone,” Casper said. She emphasized that while Energy Transfer seeks to bankrupt and silence critics, Greenpeace remains committed to peaceful protest, free expression, and climate justice. 

“This is the kind of fight that we were made for,” she said.

As per Law.com, Energy Transfer initially accused Greenpeace of engaging in a “racketeering campaign” involving trespass, defamation, and incitement—claims that ultimately led to a historic jury verdict. The court allowed proceedings under state law rather than federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) framework, highlighting vulnerabilities in Greenpeace’s legal stance.

Despite branding itself as peaceful, Greenpeace has faced legal challenges over alleged aggressive tactics both domestically and internationally. In 2017, Reuters reports that a Canadian court allowed defamation claims by Resolute Forest Products against Greenpeace after finding "pleaded facts" of deliberate reputational harm.

According to her LinkedIn, Casper serves as General Counsel at Greenpeace International where she leads legal strategies on climate litigation and protest-related matters. With over 15 years of experience in environmental law and human rights issues, she previously served as Senior Legal Counsel for Strategic Litigation and sits on the board of Climate Justice Fund.