Defending Environmental Advocacy: Environmental Justice in an Era of Corporate Retaliation

How Strategic Lawsuits Are Silencing Environmental Accountability

In March 2025, a North Dakota jury awarded Energy Transfer more than $660 million in damages from Greenpeace USA, holding the organization liable for defamation and conspiracy in connection to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. The ruling is unprecedented. It is also a warning.

For decades, Greenpeace has been one of the most prominent voices challenging fossil fuel development and environmental degradation. Now, it stands at the center of a legal offensive that could reshape the landscape for environmental research, advocacy, and protest. The message to other watchdogs, scientists, and advocacy groups is clear: exposing harm comes with risk—and that risk is growing.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are increasingly being used to intimidate those who speak out against powerful industries. These suits are not always designed to win on the merits. Their aim is to drain resources, chill public discourse, and dissuade others from investigating corporate behavior.

Having worked for years on environmental research related to extractive industries, I have seen the patterns. Whether in mining, logging, or fossil fuel development, the playbook is consistent: externalize environmental costs, avoid remediation, and suppress opposition through both public relations and legal pressure. But this verdict elevates the threat. It signals a willingness to use the courts to neutralize not just speech, but inquiry itself.

The danger is not hypothetical. It is strategic and targeted.

Independent researchers, community scientists, and advocacy organizations often operate without the legal protections or financial reserves that large corporations possess. The risk of being sued—even without merit—is enough to halt investigations, delay publications, or dissuade whistleblowers from coming forward. In the absence of strong legal safeguards, truth itself becomes vulnerable to litigation.

This ruling highlights the need for immediate and coordinated action.

First, strong anti-SLAPP protections must be passed at the federal level and in all U.S. states. These laws provide an essential defense for researchers, journalists, and advocates who engage in public-interest work. Without them, the legal system can be weaponized to silence critical voices.

Second, there must be a push for binding corporate accountability measures. Voluntary compliance and self-regulation have proven insufficient. Companies must be held legally responsible for environmental and social harms, with enforceable penalties that deter misconduct.

Third, the environmental and research communities must build robust support networks to defend against legal intimidation. This includes legal defense funds, shared resources for risk management, and collective strategies to respond to SLAPPs and similar tactics.

The verdict against Greenpeace is not just a legal outcome; it is a strategic maneuver in the broader conflict over climate action and corporate accountability. How we respond will determine the future of environmental advocacy and the ability to conduct independent, critical research without fear of reprisal.

The stakes are high. The time to act is now.