A landmark trial began this week in the ongoing controversy surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline, with far-reaching implications for freedom of speech and environmental activism in the United States. Energy Transfer, the company operating the pipeline, is suing Greenpeace for $300 million, alleging that the organization supported protesters' "unlawful acts of trespass" and property destruction to stop construction.

The lawsuit, which goes to trial this week, claims that Greenpeace spread false information about the company and concerns about the pipeline's impact on the environment and cultural sites to the public and to banks financing the project. If Greenpeace is found liable, the damages would be equivalent to about 10 times its annual budget, potentially leading to financial ruin and an end to over 50 years of environmental activism.

The Dakota Access Pipeline has been a contentious issue since its development was first proposed, with the Standing Rock Sioux and over 500 other tribes protesting alongside demonstrators from across the US. Although oil started flowing through the pipeline in 2017, legal battles have continued, with this trial being a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle.

Grassroots activists from Standing Rock, including Waniya Locke, argue that the lawsuit is a threat to free speech across the board, misrepresenting a movement that was led by Indigenous protesters rather than any outside environmental organization. "Freedom of speech is on the line," Locke said. "This directly impacts everybody, not just Standing Rock, not just Greenpeace."

Greenpeace has garnered significant support from over 400 organizations and celebrities, including Billie Eilish, Jane Fonda, and Susan Sarandon, who signed an open letter to Energy Transfer. The letter asserts that the lawsuit is an attempt to hold Greenpeace accountable for actions taken by unaffiliated individuals and "attempts to rewrite the history of the Indigenous-led opposition movement at Standing Rock – by absurdly alleging that Greenpeace orchestrated the entire resistance."

Energy Transfer spokesperson Jeff Tieszen claimed that the lawsuit is about Greenpeace not following the law, rather than an attack on free speech. However, critics, including Josh Galperin, associate law professor at Pace University, believe that the lawsuit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit, aimed at silencing Greenpeace and deterring future protests. "My instinct here is that this is a SLAPP suit," Galperin said. "Their real concern is the persistence of the protest – the way it is capable of turning public opinion."

A federal court dismissed a similar lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer against Greenpeace in 2017. However, North Dakota, where the trial is taking place, is one of only 15 states without anti-SLAPP laws. Greenpeace USA national campaigns director Rolf Skar argued that the lawsuit is an attempt to silence the organization, stating, "The facts don't change. They're asking for money that we don't have, that they don't need, for a pipeline that is already operating and making them money when they filed their initial lawsuit. So this is about silencing us."

The trial is scheduled to end on March 27th, and its outcome will have significant implications for the future of environmental activism and freedom of speech in the United States. As the case unfolds, it will be crucial to monitor its progress and consider the potential consequences for civic action and public participation in environmental debates.