Science
A Quarter-Billion Dollars for Defamation: Inside Greenpeace’s Huge Loss
When the environmental group Greenpeace lost a nearly $670 million verdict this month over its role in oil pipeline protests, a quarter-billion dollars of the damages were awarded not for the actual demonstrations, but for defaming the pipeline’s owner.
The costly verdict has raised alarm among activist organizations as well as some First Amendment experts, who said the lawsuit and damage awards could deter free speech far beyond the environmental movement.
The verdict “will send a chill down the spine of any nonprofit who wants to get involved in any political protest,” said David D. Cole, a professor at Georgetown Law and former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “If you’re the Sierra Club, or the N.A.A.C.P., or the N.R.A., or an anti-abortion group, you’re going to be very worried.”
The lawsuit, filed by Energy Transfer in 2019, accused Greenpeace of masterminding an “unlawful and violent scheme” to harm the company’s finances, employees and infrastructure and to block the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace countered that it had promoted peaceful protest and had played only a minor role in the demonstrations, which were led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe over concerns about its ancestral land and water supply.
A key part of Energy Transfer’s case relied on defamation claims. For example, the jury found that Greenpeace defamed the company by saying it had “damaged at least 380 sacred and cultural sites” during pipeline work, the first of nine statements found defamatory.
Greenpeace called Energy Transfer’s lawsuit an attempt to muzzle the company’s critics. “This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations,” said Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace USA. “We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment.”
Greenpeace has said it will appeal to the Supreme Court in North Dakota, the state where the trial was held. Free-speech issues are widely expected to figure prominently in that filing.
But Greenpeace was not the only party invoking the First Amendment.
Upon leaving the courtroom, the lead lawyer for Energy Transfer, Trey Cox of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, called the verdict “a powerful affirmation” of the First Amendment. “Peaceful protest is an inherent American right,” he said. “However, violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable.”
Vicki Granado, a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer, described the verdict as “a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law.”
The clashing comments shine a light on a central tension in the debate: Where do you draw the line between peaceful protest and unlawful activity?
“If people are engaged in non-expressive conduct, like vandalism, like impeding roadways such that cars and passers-by can’t use those roadways, the First Amendment is not going to protect that,” said JT Morris, a senior supervising attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonprofit that defends free speech across the ideological spectrum. “But peaceful protest, criticism of companies on matters of public concern, those are all protected.”
The verdict landed in the midst of a larger debate over the limits of free speech. President Trump has accused news outlets of defaming him, and he has been found liable for defamation himself. His administration has targeted law firms he perceives as enemies, as well as international students deemed too critical of Israel or of U.S. foreign policy. Conservatives have accused social media platforms of suppressing free speech and have vowed to stop what they call online censorship.
“There’s nothing in this particular political climate that’s shocking anymore,” said Jack Weinberg, who in the 1960s was a prominent free-speech activist and later worked for Greenpeace. (He’s also known for the phrase “Don’t trust anyone over 30,” although that’s not exactly how he said it.) “But it’s wrong,” he said of the verdict, “and it will have profound consequences.”
There has long been a high bar for defamation lawsuits in the United States.
The First Amendment protects free speech and the right to protest, and a landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision, New York Times v. Sullivan, strengthened those protections. To prevail in a defamation suit, a public figure must prove that the statement was false and was made with “actual malice,” meaning knowledge that the statement was false, or reckless disregard for its veracity.
Carl W. Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, said that ruling intentionally raised the bar to win a defamation suit. “It’s extreme,” he said. “It’s meant to be.”
Eugene Volokh, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, pointed to the history of that famous case. It concerned a 1960 ad in The Times that described police actions against civil rights demonstrators in Alabama as “an unprecedented wave of terror.”
A police official sued the paper and won. But the Supreme Court overturned the verdict. The court ruled that protecting such speech was necessary, even if it contained errors, in order to ensure robust public debate.
In a Greenpeace appeal, Mr. Volokh said, the evidence demonstrating whether Greenpeace’s statements were true or false would be crucial in evaluating the verdict, as would the question of whether Greenpeace’s statements were constitutionally protected expressions of opinion.
Other issues that loom: What was permitted to be entered into evidence in the first place, and whether the instructions to the jury were sufficient. Then, he said, if the statements are found to be clearly false, is there enough evidence to show that Greenpeace engaged in “reckless falsehood, acts of so-called actual malice?”
Any award for defamation chills free speech, Mr. Volokh added, whether against Greenpeace or against the Infowars host Alex Jones, who was found liable for more than $1 billion over his false statements about the murder of children at the Sandy Hook school shooting.
In the Greenpeace case, the nine statements found by the jury to be defamatory referred to Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access. One statement said that Dakota Access personnel had “deliberately desecrated burial grounds.” Another said that protesters had been met with “extreme violence, such as the use of water cannons, pepper spray, concussion grenades, Tasers, LRADs (Long Range Acoustic Devices) and dogs, from local and national law enforcement, and Energy Transfer partners and their private security.”
Other statements were more general: “For months, the Standing Rock Sioux have been resisting the construction of a pipeline through their tribal land and waters that would carry oil from North Dakota’s fracking fields to Illinois.”
The protests unfolded over months, from mid-2016 to early 2017, attracting tens of thousands of people from around the world, and were widely documented by news crews and on social media.
Janet Alkire, chairwoman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, argued that Greenpeace’s statements were true and not defamatory. “Energy Transfer’s false and self-serving narrative that Greenpeace manipulated Standing Rock into protesting DAPL is patronizing and disrespectful to our people,” she said in a statement, using an abbreviation for the Dakota Access Pipeline.
She said that “scenes of guard dogs menacing tribal members” were publicly available “on the news and on the internet.”
Videos of the incidents in question weren’t shown at the trial. Everett Jack Jr. of the firm Davis, Wright Tremaine, the main lawyer for Greenpeace, declined to discuss why.
The 1,172-mile pipeline, priced at $3.7 billion when announced, has been operating since 2017. It carries crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois.
During the trial, some arguments hinged on whether the pipeline crossed Standing Rock’s land, or how to define tribal land. The pipeline is just outside the borders of the reservation but crosses what the tribe calls unceded land that it had never agreed to give up.
There was also debate about whether tribal burial grounds were harmed during construction. Experts working for the tribe found that was the case, but experts brought in by Energy Transfer did not.
Even if a statement was false, Mr. Cole said, a defendant cannot be held liable if they had a basis for believing it. He also predicted that the penalty would likely be reduced on appeal if not overturned.
Martin Garbus, a veteran First Amendment lawyer, led a delegation of lawyers to North Dakota to observe the trial, who have said that the jury was biased against the defendants and that the trial should have been moved to another county. He expressed concern that an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court could be used to overturn Times v. Sullivan. He noted that Justice Clarence Thomas has called for the Supreme Court to reconsider that case.
But Mr. Cole, Mr. Tobias and other experts said they did not expect the court to reconsider Times v. Sullivan.
Greenpeace has said previously that the size of the damages could force the organization to shut down its U.S. operations.
The lawsuit named three Greenpeace entities, but it centered on the actions of Greenpeace Inc., based in Washington, which organizes campaigns and protests in the United States and was found liable for more than $400 million.
A second organization, Greenpeace Fund, a fund-raising arm, was found liable for about $130 million. A third group, Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, was found liable for the same amount. That group said its only involvement was signing a letter, along with several hundred other signatories, calling on banks to halt loans for the pipeline.
Earlier this year, Greenpeace International filed a countersuit in the Netherlands against Energy Transfer. That lawsuit was brought under a European Union directive designed to fight what are known as SLAPP suits, or strategic lawsuits against public participation — legal actions designed to stifle critics. (State law in North Dakota, where Energy Transfer brought its case against Greenpeace, doesn’t have anti-SLAPP provisions.)
The next hearing in the Netherlands case is in July.
Science
Video: Rare Giant Phantom Jelly Spotted in Deep Waters Near Argentina
new video loaded: Rare Giant Phantom Jelly Spotted in Deep Waters Near Argentina

By Meg Felling
February 5, 2026
Hundreds of Sea Turtles Rescued Off the Gulf Coast Due to Freezing Cold
1:27
Four Astronauts Splash Down on Earth After Early Return
1:24
Why Exercise Is the Best Thing for Your Brain Health
1:51
Drones Detect Virus in Whale Blow in the Arctic
0:40
Why Scientists Are Performing Brain Surgery on Monarchs
2:24
Engineer Is First Paraplegic Person in Space
0:19
Today’s Videos
U.S.
Politics
Immigration
NY Region
Science
Business
Culture
Books
Wellness
World
Africa
Americas
Asia
South Asia
Donald Trump
Middle East Crisis
Russia-Ukraine Crisis
Visual Investigations
Opinion Video
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Science
Tuberculosis outbreak reported at Catholic high school in Bay Area. Cases statewide are climbing
Public health officials in Northern California are investigating a tuberculosis outbreak, identifying more than 50 cases at a private Catholic high school and ordering those who are infected to stay home. The outbreak comes as tuberculosis cases have been on the rise statewide since 2023.
The San Francisco Department of Public Health issued a health advisory last week after identifying three active cases and 50 latent cases of tuberculosis at Archbishop Riordan High School in San Francisco. The disease attacks the lungs and remains in the body for years before becoming potentially deadly.
A person with active TB can develop symptoms and is infectious; a person with a latent tuberculosis infection cannot spread the bacteria to others and doesn’t feel sick. However, a person with a latent TB infection is at risk of developing the disease anytime.
The three cases of active TB have been diagnosed at the school since November, according to public health officials. The additional cases of latent TB have been identified in people within the school community.
Archbishop Riordan High School, which recently transitioned from 70 years of exclusively admitting male students to becoming co-ed in 2020, did not immediately respond to the The Times’ request for comment.
School officials told NBC Bay Area news that in-person classes had been canceled and would resume Feb. 9, with hybrid learning in place until Feb. 20. Students who test negative for tuberculosis will be allowed to return to campus even after hybrid learning commences.
Officials with the San Francisco Department of Public Health said the risk to the general population was low. Health officials are currently focused on the high school community.
How serious is a TB diagnosis?
Active TB disease is treatable and curable with appropriate antibiotics if it is identified promptly; some cases require hospitalization. But the percentage of people who have died from the disease is increasing significantly, officials said.
In 2010, 8.4% of Californians with TB died, according to the California Department of Public Health. In 2022, 14% of people in the state with TB died, the highest rate since 1995. Of those who died, 22% died before receiving TB treatment.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that up to 13 million people nationwide live with latent TB.
How does California’s TB rate compare to the country?
Public health officials reported that California’s annual TB incidence rate was 5.4 cases per 100,000 people last year, nearly double the national incidence rate of 3.0 per 100,000 in 2023.
In 2024, 2,109 California residents were reported to have TB compared to 2,114 in 2023 — the latter was about the same as the total number of cases reported in 2019, according to the state Department of Public Health.
The number of TB cases in the state has remained consistent from 2,000 to 2,200 cases since 2012, except during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2022.
California’s high TB rates could be caused by a large portion of the population traveling to areas where TB is endemic, said Dr. Shruti Gohil, associate medical director for UCI Health Epidemiology and Infection Prevention.
Nationally, the rates of TB cases have increased in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, which “was in some ways anticipated,” said Gohil. The increasing number of TB cases nationwide could be due to a disruption in routine care during the pandemic and a boom in travel post-pandemic.
Routine screening is vital in catching latent TB, which can lie dormant in the body for decades. If the illness is identified, treatment could stop it from becoming active. This type of routine screening wasn’t accessible during the pandemic, when healthcare was limited to emergency or essential visits only, Gohil said.
When pandemic restrictions on travel were lifted, people started to travel again and visit areas where TB is endemic, including Asia, Europe and South America, she said.
To address the uptick in cases and suppress spread, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2132 into law in 2024, which requires adult patients receiving primary care services to be offered tuberculosis screening if risk factors are identified. The law went into effect in 2025.
What is TB?
In the United States, tuberculosis is caused by a germ called Mycobacterium tuberculosis, which primarily affects the lungs and can impact other parts of the body such as the brain, kidneys and spine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If not treated properly, TB can be fatal.
TB is spread through the air when an infected person speaks, coughs or sings and a nearby person breathes in the germs.
When a person breathes in the TB germs, they settle in the lungs and can spread through the blood to other parts of the body.
The symptoms of active TB include:
- A cough that lasts three weeks or longer
- Chest pain
- Coughing up blood or phlegm
- Weakness or fatigue
- Weight loss
- Loss of appetite
- Chills
- Fever
- Night sweats
Generally, who is at risk of contracting TB?
Those at higher risk of contracting TB are people who have traveled outside the United States to places where TB rates are high including Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America.
A person has an increased risk of getting TB if they live or work in such locations as hospitals, homeless shelters, correctional facilities and nursing homes, according to the CDC.
People with weakened immune systems caused by health conditions that include HIV infection, diabetes, silicosis and severe kidney disease have a higher risk of getting TB.
Others at higher risk of contracting the disease include babies and young children.
Science
Contributor: Animal testing slows medical progress. It wastes money. It’s wrong
I am living with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, often called Lou Gehrig’s disease. The average survival time after diagnosis is two to five years. I’m in year two.
When you have a disease like ALS, you learn how slowly medical research moves, and how often it fails the people it is supposed to save. You also learn how precious time is.
For decades, the dominant pathway for developing new drugs has relied on animal testing. Most of us grew up believing this was unavoidable: that laboratories full of caged animals were simply the price of medical progress. But experts have known for a long time that data tell a very different story.
The Los Angeles Times reported in 2017: “Roughly 90% of drugs that succeed in animal tests ultimately fail in people, after hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent.”
The Times editorial board summed it up in 2018: “Animal experiments are expensive, slow and frequently misleading — a major reason why so many drugs that appear promising in animals fail in human trials.”
Then there’s the ethical cost — confining, sickening and killing millions of animals each year for a system that fails 9 times out of 10. As Jane Goodall put it, “We have the choice to use alternatives to animal testing that are not cruel, not unethical, and often more effective.”
Despite overwhelming evidence and well-reasoned arguments against animal-based pipelines, they remain central to U.S. medical research. Funding agencies, academic medical centers, government labs, pharmaceutical companies and even professional societies have been painfully slow to move toward human- and technology-based approaches.
Yet medical journals are filled with successes involving organoids (mini-organs grown in a lab), induced pluripotent stem cells, organ-on-a-chip systems (tiny devices with human cells inside), AI-driven modeling and 3D-bioprinted human tissues. These tools are already transforming how we understand disease.
In ALS research, induced pluripotent stem cells have allowed scientists to grow motor neurons in a dish, using cells derived from actual patients. Researchers have learned how ALS-linked mutations damage those neurons, identified drug candidates that never appeared in animal models and even created personalized “test beds” for individual patients’ cells.
Human-centric pipelines can be dramatically faster. Some are reported to be up to 10 times quicker than animal-based approaches. AI-driven human biology simulations and digital “twins” can test thousands of drug candidates in silico, with a simulation. Some models achieve results hundreds, even thousands, of times faster than conventional animal testing.
For the 30 million Americans living with chronic or fatal diseases, these advances are tantalizing glimpses of a future in which we might not have to suffer and die while waiting for systems that don’t work.
So why aren’t these tools delivering drugs and therapies at scale right now?
The answer is institutional resistance, a force so powerful it can feel almost god-like. As Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist Kathleen Parker wrote in 2021, drug companies and the scientific community “likely will fight … just as they have in past years, if only because they don’t want to change how they do business.”
She reminds us that we’ve seen this before. During the AIDS crisis, activists pushed regulators to move promising drugs rapidly into human testing. Those efforts helped transform AIDS from a death sentence into a chronic condition. We also saw human-centered pipelines deliver COVID vaccines in a matter of months.
Which brings me, surprisingly, to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In December, Kennedy told Fox News that leaders across the Department of Health and Human Services are “deeply committed to ending animal experimentation.” A department spokesperson later confirmed to CBS News that the agency is “prioritizing human-based research.”
Kennedy is right.
His directive to wind down animal testing is not anti-science. It is pro-patient, pro-ethics and pro-progress. For people like me, living on borrowed time, it is not just good policy, it is hope — and a potential lifeline.
The pressure to end animal testing and let humans step up isn’t new. But it’s getting new traction. The actor Eric Dane, profiled about his personal fight with ALS, speaks for many of us when he expresses his wish to contribute as a test subject: “Not to be overly morbid, but you know, if I’m going out, I’m gonna go out helping somebody.”
If I’m going out, I’d like to go out helping somebody, too.
Kevin J. Morrison is a San Francisco-based writer and ALS activist.
-
Indiana4 days ago13-year-old rider dies following incident at northwest Indiana BMX park
-
Massachusetts5 days agoTV star fisherman, crew all presumed dead after boat sinks off Massachusetts coast
-
Tennessee6 days agoUPDATE: Ohio woman charged in shooting death of West TN deputy
-
Movie Reviews1 week agoVikram Prabhu’s Sirai Telugu Dubbed OTT Movie Review and Rating
-
Indiana3 days ago13-year-old boy dies in BMX accident, officials, Steel Wheels BMX says
-
Politics1 week agoVirginia Democrats seek dozens of new tax hikes, including on dog walking and dry cleaning
-
Austin, TX6 days ago
TEA is on board with almost all of Austin ISD’s turnaround plans
-
Texas5 days agoLive results: Texas state Senate runoff