Energy Transfer's Legal Assault on Greenpeace Threatens Free Speech Rights, Trial Monitors Report

March 16, 2025

Fossil fuel giant Energy Transfer LP has launched an unprecedented legal offensive against Greenpeace, threatening to silence environmental activism and chill public dissent. Court testimony reveals CEO Kelcy Warren’s company is employing shocking legal tactics as activists’ constitutional rights hang in the balance.

Kelcy Warren's Admission of “Incentive” Offers

On Thursday, March 13, 2025, during the proceedings, a video deposition of Kelcy Warren, CEO of Energy Transfer (ET), was presented. In this deposition, Warren acknowledged offering significant incentives to the then-leader of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST) during the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protests in order to stop the protests and allow unopposed completion of the pipeline. These incentives, which included monetary compensation, a luxury ranch, and the construction of a school for the Tribe, were declined.  Offers such as this one are emblematic of the strategies often employed by extractive industries to secure compliance or mitigate opposition from affected communities. However, the openness with which Warren admitted making his offer is particularly striking and warrants broader public scrutiny.

When asked what he believed was the reason his offer was turned down by the Tribal leader, Warren speculated that the Tribe's refusal of his offers was due to a more substantial incentive from another party, specifically Earthjustice, the legal representatives of the SRST at the time. This assumption dismisses the possibility that the Tribe's leadership acted on principle, prioritizing the welfare and rights of their community over material inducements. Such a narrative undermines the agency and integrity of the SRST leadership, suggesting that their decisions were financially motivated rather than rooted in genuine concern for their land and people.​

Questioning the Basis of the SLAPP Suit Against Greenpeace

Warren’s deposition testimony undermines the claim that Greenpeace was the lead actor in the protests and the movement against DAPL - otherwise, certainly Energy Transfer’s CEO would have stated it was Greenpeace that was the cause of his troubles, not an entirely different organization. Warren’s testimony makes it clear that this case against Greenpeace is actually a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), aiming to intimidate and financially burden Greenpeace, and thereby deterring environmental advocacy, activism, and free speech. Such actions constitute a misuse of the legal system, a deception of the court and the public, and amount to the unjust targeting of Greenpeace.​

Late-Stage Legal Maneuvers by Energy Transfer's Legal Team

On Friday, March 14, 2025, Trey Cox, lead attorney for Energy Transfer, sought to amend the complaint on the eve of closing arguments. The proposed amendment introduced an "Alter Ego" theory, alleging that the three Greenpeace entities named in the lawsuit operate as a single entity and are exploiting their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status to commit tax fraud against the American taxpayer. It is crucial to note that allegations of tax evasion fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. Attorneys and are not within the purview of private attorneys representing corporate interests. Introducing such serious allegations on the eve of closing arguments in the trial, without proper authority or additional evidence, raises serious concerns about the intentions behind these legal strategies and reflects the current, broader attack on the nonprofit sector writ large.

Critical Evidentiary Exclusions Regarding Pipeline Safety and Bank Divestment

While evidentiary concerns have been rampant throughout the trial, on the eve of closing, Judge Gion excluded Greenpeace from providing critical expert testimony regarding pipeline safety, which were paramount to the reason for the DAPL resistance. Additionally, although Energy Transfer relied on a third-party expert report prepared by Foley Hoag for the banks investing in DAPL and used it in its complaint against Greenpeace, this document and accompanying testimony was also excluded when offered in full as evidence by Greenpeace, because within the text, it is clear that Greenpeace was not a central cause of concern around the DAPL investment. 

Conclusion

The Trial Monitoring Committee remains committed to observing and reporting on the proceedings of Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace. The recent developments highlight tactics that appear to be aimed at undermining legitimate environmental advocacy, activism, and suppressing free speech.

For further information and previous statements, please visit our official website: www.trialmonitors.org