🧃 Slapp, Crackle, Pop

Welcome to The Strawman, the daily climate newsletter that’s less about the weather and more about the storms brewing in courtrooms. Today, we head to Mandan, North Dakota — a town better known for vintage cars than landmark legal showdowns — to unpack a trial that’s part environmental clash, part free speech litmus test, and part corporate vengeance tour.

From Pipelines to Power Plays

A full eight years after protests erupted against the Dakota Access Pipeline, Energy Transfer — the company behind the oil project — is dragging Greenpeace into court. Their claim? That the environmental group masterminded delays, spread misinformation, and cost them millions. Greenpeace says it barely played a supporting role and certainly didn’t wield any wrenches or pitchforks. But the trial, set in a town with deep oil ties and not-so-deep love for protesters, is shaping up to be a proxy war over the right to dissent in Trump’s America 2.0.

The timing isn’t subtle. Trump is back, fossil fuels are back in vogue, and judicial independence is, well, somewhere on vacation. Critics worry this case is less about redress and more about retaliation — and that it could open the floodgates for corporations to go after activists with lawsuits instead of tear gas.

Slapp Happy

This trial isn’t just a courtroom drama — it’s the latest example of a “Slapp” (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), where big companies sue smaller opponents not necessarily to win, but to exhaust them into silence. Greenpeace faces up to $300 million in damages, enough to potentially shut down its U.S. operations.

The fossil fuel industry is getting cozy with this tactic. Exxon has sued activist shareholders. States have passed laws criminalizing pipeline protest. And the US — under Trump’s executive order — is yanking climate funds from the Global South, just in case you forgot who’s boss. Even Exxon’s lawsuit against California’s Attorney General over alleged defamation fits the vibe: if you can’t change the narrative, sue the narrator.

America the Litigious

Greenpeace isn’t the only one watching this trial closely. Indigenous groups, human rights lawyers, and even coffee shop owners in Mandan are split on whether Greenpeace should take the fall for a protest that involved thousands. And while some locals say the demonstrations still leave a bad taste, few seem convinced that one group should shoulder the blame.

The broader fear is that this case sets a precedent. Win or lose, the sheer burden of defending against lawsuits like these could chill future protests — from climate activism to racial justice to anti-war movements. And if companies can weaponize the courts to shut down dissent, we’re not far from a world where shouting into a megaphone requires legal counsel.

The Strawman’s Takeaway
This isn’t just about Greenpeace, or even pipelines. It’s about whether the right to protest survives a legal system increasingly being used to scare it into submission, and right now? It’s shaky.