Greenpeace Worldwide and Greenpeace organisations within the US filed on 27 March 2026 a movement for a brand new trial in North Dakota District Courtroom. This demand for justice follows the absurd and flawed US$ 345 million judgment issued by the identical court docket in Power Switch’s SLAPP lawsuit in opposition to the Greenpeace events returned on 27 February 2026. Power Switch’s back-to-back SLAPP lawsuits are makes an attempt to erase Indigenous management of the Standing Rock Motion, punish solidarity with the continued resistance to the Dakota Entry Pipeline, and intimidate environmental activists from talking out in opposition to Large Oil corporations.
The movement for a brand new trial needs to be granted to stop one of many largest miscarriages of justice in North Dakota’s historical past. We’re demanding the court docket proper the wrongs dedicated at trial and to make sure the rights and freedoms promised below the US structure are protected.
Greenpeace is not going to relaxation till justice is served and Large Oil can now not use and abuse the authorized system in North Dakota or anyplace else.
Greenpeace Worldwide Common Counsel Kristin Casper
There isn’t a query the Greenpeace defendants have been denied a good trial — even a concise abstract of the errors and injustices that marred the trial runs to over 100 pages.
Among the many quite a few egregious flaws documented within the movement for a brand new trial are:
The Greenpeace defendants couldn’t obtain a good and neutral trial in Morton County.
Seven out of 9 jurors that determined the case had clear biases on account of fossil gasoline business ties, experiences with the Standing Rock protests, and/or preexisting adverse views of the Greenpeace defendants.
Even if 1000’s of people and lots of of organisations have been concerned in actions at Standing Rock and talking out in opposition to DAPL, and North Dakota legislation clearly requiring damages to be break up amongst everybody who contributed to alleged harms, the jury and the court docket assigned 100% of the claimed damages to the Greenpeace defendants.
The jury’s verdict was opposite to the burden of the proof on every rely.
The jury verdict was tainted by the inclusion of inadmissible, prejudicial data.
The jury was improperly prevented from listening to related, admissible proof that was favorable to the Greenpeace defendants.
The jury was offered inaccurate and incomplete directions and a flawed verdict type.
