A legal loophole is being exploited in the high-stakes conflict between environmental activists and energy companies, as revealed by the ongoing case between Greenpeace and pipeline giant Energy Transfer. A little-known group, Grow America’s Infrastructure Now (GAIN), filed a legal brief urging the North Dakota Supreme Court to block Greenpeace from pursuing lawsuits against Energy Transfer in other jurisdictions.
The Backing of GAIN
GAIN, which presents itself as a nonprofit supporting infrastructure projects, is in reality heavily funded by Energy Transfer. Court records show the company was providing GAIN with roughly $100,000 monthly to operate a coalition specifically targeting Greenpeace’s legal efforts. This arrangement, documented by the watchdog group Fieldnotes, points to deliberate coordination between GAIN and Energy Transfer.
The Abuse of Amicus Briefs
The case highlights a growing trend: the misuse of amicus briefs (friend-of-the-court filings). Originally intended to provide additional legal perspectives, these briefs are increasingly used by parties to circumvent standard litigation procedures. According to law professor Renee Knake Jefferson, this allows one side to continue advocacy under the guise of neutral input.
The Stakes and the Fallout
The legal battle stems from protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline nearly a decade ago. A North Dakota jury held Greenpeace liable for $670 million in damages, a judgment that could bankrupt the organization in the United States. GAIN’s intervention seeks to prevent Greenpeace from challenging this ruling elsewhere.
Representatives for both GAIN and Energy Transfer declined to comment on their relationship. The case raises concerns about the transparency of third-party legal influence and the potential for corporations to manipulate court proceedings through hidden funding.
The unchecked use of such tactics undermines the integrity of the legal system, allowing deep-pocketed interests to shape outcomes without public scrutiny.
