This week, a jury in North Dakota found Greenpeace liable for more than $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. It was a monumental verdict that many civil society groups and First Amendment lawyers have warned could chill free speech.

The case stems from the protests that erupted near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in 2016, when Indigenous activists and environmentalists gathered to oppose construction of the pipeline, which crossed the Missouri River close to the reservation. Standing Rock leaders warned that a spill could contaminate their water supply and that construction would disturb sacred lands, and said they had not been properly consulted.

Some of the protests included acts of vandalism and clashes with pipeline company employees and law enforcement, and Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of providing financial and other support to the people involved. Greenpeace said it played only a minor role in the protests.

The jury ruled against Greenpeace on numerous counts, however, finding it liable for trespass, conspiracy, defamation and other offenses. The case named three Greenpeace entities as defendants, two in the United States and its international umbrella organization.

KUSNETZ: So $660 million is a lot of money, of course, and I’m wondering if you can put that figure in context for readers and tell us what the verdict means for Greenpeace USA and its operations?

RAMAN: It is a very large amount of money for most organizations and individuals, as you can imagine. It’s a fairly small amount of money for Energy Transfer. And the reality is that this case is not really about the money, even though it’s a very large amount. It’s really about the desire to send a message that a powerful company can silence a large environmental organization, and send a message to other organizations, not just environmental groups, other types of groups that are trying to hold power to account, that we will use these tools, strategic litigation against public participation, or SLAPPs, to intimidate you, or silence you, or perhaps even bankrupt you.

KUSNETZ: To press on this again, is this the kind of figure that could bankrupt Greenpeace if it does have to pay?

RAMAN: Well, we are definitely going to appeal. So we’re not at the stage of having to pay. We are going to appeal this, and we are confident in our case and in the facts. So this is the next chapter in this journey, if you will. Yes, but this is a number that far exceeds our annual budget by many times.