You may not have heard much of the name “Standing Rock” for almost a decade, but you may remember the fall of 2016 when the Dakota Access Pipeline protests dominated headlines and social media, turning a local fight into a global movement. Protesters, including thousands of Native and non-Native allies, made national headlines as they built makeshift camps and demanded an end to the pipeline construction under Lake Oahe. If you were on social media, you almost couldn’t avoid images of water protectors encamped in bitter North Dakota weather, shielded only by tarps and sweatshirts from police in riot gear and bulldozers.
The Dakota Access Pipeline protests (known around the world as Standing Rock) didn’t just leave an imprint on environmental activism. They birthed years of legal fallout, culminating in a clash between Energy Transfer (the pipeline’s developer) and Greenpeace International, the environmental campaigning and advocacy organization. Earlier this year, a federal court handed down a decision that may shape how courts balance free press rights against demands for disclosure in civil litigation.
Protests Spark the Lawsuit
Energy Transfer announced plans for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) in 2014, igniting years-long opposition from indigenous and environmental activists. By 2016, construction began near Lake Oahe, next to the Standing Rock Reservation that was home to the Sioux Tribe. It soon became ground zero for some of the largest environmental protests in recent U.S. history.
Journalists from Unicorn Riot (not the EDM music festival it sounds like, but rather, a Minnesota-based nonprofit media outlet) embedded themselves within protesters. They documented social and environmental struggles, sometimes while facing arrest (all charges were dropped). Their coverage would later become part of the sprawling litigation after the protests subsided.
In 2019, Energy Transfer filed suit in North Dakota against Greenpeace International and others. They accused the organizations of committing all kinds of torts during the protests: trespass, conversion, nuisance, defamation, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy.
The Discovery Battle Begins
As the North Dakota suit moved forward, Energy Transfer sought additional information by subpoenaing Unicorn Riot and its journalist, Niko Georgiades. The pipeline company asked for the publication’s internal documents tied to DAPL events, including unpublished newsgathering materials.
Unicorn Riot objected, arguing that unpublished materials are protected by the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act (MFFIA) and the First Amendment. They pointed Energy Transfer to everything they’d already published (reports and livestreams) but resisted giving up other internal documents.
By June 2022, Energy Transfer asked a Minnesota district court to compel Unicorn Riot and Georgiades to surrender the requested information. Energy Transfer argued that unlawful or tortious conduct by journalists during the protests stripped them of privilege. They also asked, at minimum, for a “privilege log”: a list of withheld documents with descriptions sufficient for contesting claims of privilege. Unicorn Riot fought back, leaning on privilege and undue burden.
Questions of Privilege
The district court agreed that Unicorn Riot’s status as a media organization offered robust protection under MFFIA. Nonetheless, the court ordered Unicorn Riot to produce a privilege log detailing what was withheld and why.
Both parties appealed. Energy Transfer wanted the information; Unicorn Riot wanted out of producing any privilege log. The Minnesota Court of Appeals sided with Unicorn Riot: no discovery, no log, not when MFFIA applied. The court cited precedent that held that a privilege log could not be compelled when the privilege itself is absolute.
Minnesota Supreme Court Weighs In
By July 2025, the Supreme Court of Minnesota stepped in. The first question was: Does MFFIA’s protection evaporate if a newsgatherer engaged in unlawful conduct? The Supreme Court said no; MFFIA provides broad protection for newsgatherers, regardless of allegations of unlawful or tortious conduct. This is generally true except where specific statutory exceptions apply, such as probable cause relating to a crime or evidence of actual malice in defamation.
The second question was whether courts can order a privilege log when MFFIA is invoked. The Supreme Court held that courts retain authority to require a privilege log, but only if doing so wouldn’t impose an undue burden or effectively require disclosure of privileged information. Producing a log should not force a journalist to reveal confidential sources or unpublished material. The trial court gets to decide where the line lies.
Ultimately, Energy Transfer failed to compel the disclosure of materials outright. But it won the principle that trial courts are not barred from requiring privilege logs if handled with caution.
Damages Reduced for Greenpeace
Just when we thought the case was over, a new update came last week. The trial judge, James W. Gion, issued a new opinion that recalculated and clarified the damages owed after reviewing motions from both sides.
Some of the earlier jury awards (like those for trespass to land and conversion) were eliminated because there was insufficient evidence that Energy Transfer had an interest in the property where trespass occurred, or that conversion was proven. The court also capped exemplary (punitive) damages for each claim, applying statutory limits and clarifying that no exemplary damages could be recovered on defamation claims due to lack of timely demand for correction.
After a long legal battle, it looks like the environmentalist group can get some peace and save some green.
Related Resources:
- Conservationists Sue To Protect Chinook Salmon Populations (FindLaw’s Courtside)
- Trump Administration Proposes To Roll Back EPA Rule Limiting Greenhouse Gases and Other Pollution (Law and Daily Life)
- Supreme Court Gives States Expanded Power Over Native Tribes (FindLaw’s Federal Courts)
