How Environmental Activism is Getting SLAPPed

Mikey Glover | Climate and Environment Fellow

Image sourced from Markus Spiske via Unsplash.

In February 2026, a North Dakota judgment ordered Greenpeace USA to pay US$345 million to Energy Transfer Partners (ETP). Ostensibly, the lawsuit found that Greenpeace’s support of environmental and Native American advocacy groups in the 2016 Standing Rock protests amounted to illegal activism in impeding construction of ETP’s Dakota Access Pipeline. From another lens, the lawsuit represents a significant escalation in “lawfare” by powerful corporations, weaponising courts to suppress advocacy and undermine accountability.

Justice, But for Whom?

The courtroom has increasingly played an important role in climate governance, remediating policy lacunae, spurring environmental law reform, and even holding that governments and large corporations have obligations to protect the climate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But as activist litigation threatens corporate interests, “anti-climate” litigation has increased in response, with 27% of climate cases filed in 2024 being to resist climate policies. Such efforts have been reinforced by escalating anti-protest legislation, which have expanded offence categories and punitive powers.

In 2024, a United Nations Special Rapporteur report highlighted the growing influence of wealth on judges and uptake of ‘Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation’ (SLAPPs). SLAPPs are legal actions brought by a wealthy corporation or private individual to intimidate and censor public interest advocacy, often against anti-corruption or environmental campaigns. They are not designed to vindicate any legitimate rights, but to pervert the justice system, and turn the courtroom from an instrument of accountability into one that suppresses dissent. Beyond silencing the target advocate, SLAPPs also create a “chilling effect” where censorship ripples out to public debate more broadly.

 Asymmetric Lawfare

SLAPPs are particularly potent due to the asymmetry in resources. They often target individual activists, academics, journalists, or not-for-profit groups, seeking to drain their resources through extended litigation. Litigants employ tactics such as initiating simultaneous or sequential proceedings across different jurisdictions and filing excessive adjournments or discovery requests. The corporation or powerful individual can absorb the legal costs, while advocates are left impoverished. Importantly, litigants only need to make the cost of defending expensive enough that advocates self-censor, regardless of the actual outcome. In this way, the threat of litigation is just as devastating. If the advocate does proceed to trial, there is also an asymmetry in consequences. SLAPPs are typically civil claims seeking exorbitant damages or criminal defamation proceedings that expose advocates to fines or imprisonment. While corporations can launch multiple claims, they only need to win once. Advocates, on the other hand, must defend an existential threat every time.

The injustice of the North Dakota ruling in favour of ETP, which has a market capitalisation of US$64 billion, is clear. Greenpeace leverages its global reputation as an environmental advocacy network to attract funding from individuals and grants, rather than governments or corporations. While it has defended many lawsuits, this judgment–the largest ever against an environmental organisation–threatens to both destroy Greenpeace and deter public interest protests more broadly. The original lawsuit, brought under organised crime legislation and alleging Greenpeace was a “rogue eco-terrorist”, was dismissed in the United States Federal Court. The trial in North Dakota–a highly pro-fossil fuel state–was labelled by independent legal experts a “blatant injustice” with a verdict from a jury with close ties to the fossil fuel industry. Greenpeace has filed a motion for a retrial, with plans to appeal further.

There have also been several high-profile SLAPP cases in Australia, including the infamous Gunns20 (2004) and Greenpeace v AGL Energy (2021) cases, which saw corporate lawsuits against environmental protests sparking community outrage, and the campaigning activities ultimately exculpated. Conversely in 2023, Santos successfully pursued legal costs from the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), arising from litigation by Tiwi Islanders to oppose the Barossa Gas Export Pipeline. The Federal Court of Australia ordered the EDO to pay Santos’ AU$9 million legal costs, and while the EDO accepted the decision, there has been criticism about the suppression of scrutiny more broadly.

Stop the SLAPP

These are but a few of many cases demonstrating the threat of SLAPPs to public debate and democracy. In Australia, the Australian Capital Territory is currently the only jurisdiction with anti-SLAPP protection, but it has been criticised as inadequate. As a result, there are widespread calls for national anti-SLAPP legislation to protect environmental activism from corporate retaliation. This legislation must enshrine freedoms for expression and peaceful assembly, and empower courts to dismiss frivolous lawsuits and penalise legal abuse. It must also be uniform across the States and Territories, to prevent “forum shopping” where SLAPPs are filed strategically in jurisdictions without the protections, as has been seen in the US. The calls come alongside additional recommendations to implement a Federal Human Rights Act, and to ratify the Aarhus Convention to promote public participation in environmental decision-making. 

The European Union introduced its Anti-SLAPP Directive in 2024, enabling Greenpeace International to file a counter-suit against ETP in the Netherlands, which commenced in April 2026. As Greenpeace defends its existence, it is clear that Australia’s democracy, society and environment need robust anti-SLAPP legislation. Climate litigation plays a valuable role in climate governance, particularly where politics and international agreements leave our rights on the table. However, the rise of SLAPPs perverts fundamental tenets of the justice system, silencing advocacy and shielding corporate interests from accountability. The impetus and the method are there. All that is left is action.

Mikey is a recent graduate of the University of Sydney with a Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor ofScience. He has a strong interest in climate governance, international environmental law, andAustralia’s role in shaping cooperative responses to transnational environmental challenges.

His academic work has focused on international environmental frameworks, including plastics regulation, water governance, and global climate litigation. As a research assistant with theAustralian Centre for Climate and Environmental Law, he investigated how legal and non-legal mechanisms can protect and restore natural ecosystems.

Mikey also studied in Shanghai at the East China University of Political Science and Law, deepening his interest in China’s climate transition and the implications for Australia–China environmental cooperation.

Through this fellowship, Mikey hopes to further explore how environmental diplomacy and governance can support a resilient, sustainable, and equitable Asia-Pacific.​

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Young Australians in International Affairs. All content is original, and no plagiarism has been used in the preparation of this article. AI tools were used for organising initial ideas and limited editorial assistance.