New Orleans SLAPP or Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation lawsuits are not a new corporate tactic to stop various campaigns, nonprofits, advocacy groups, and membership organizations from exercising their right and duty to protest against adverse corporate practices and developments. Such suits have been filed in the United States for decades at this point. ACORN faced its fair share of such litigation over the years. Currently, ACORN affiliates in France and the United Kingdom have had to confront similar lawsuits designed to prevent our work in support of our tenant, Muslim, and African operations specifically. The whole point of such lawsuits is to deter protest and, if effective, put nonprofits out of business. Recently, a nonprofit trade association of internet advertisers announced that it was ceasing operations in order to defend itself against a questionable suit filed by Elon Musk claiming that the group had orchestrated a boycott over his questionable practices at X-Twitter.
All of which made it interesting to see that Greenpeace has tried to reverse the tables on a SLAPP suit filed in connection with the Dakota pipeline protests several years ago. The lawsuit was filed by a Trump donor and ally, Kelcy Warren, the principal behind Energy Transfer, the company building the 1170-mile crude oil pipeline. The suit, alleging various kinds of conspiracy under the RICO Act, has been kicked back and forth between various courts over the last more than half-dozen years and is still pending in North Dakota. Greenpeace, via its international arm, which was named in the suit, has threatened to countersue and has demanded the company pay its legal costs and damages under the provisions of a new set of European Union rules seeking to rein in such SLAPP suits. Greenpeace is alleging that the real purpose of the suit, similar to Musk’s successful tactic, is to shut down the well-known enviro group and it’s operations by drowning it in expensive legal costs. The new EU rules seek to block litigation that aims to kill nonprofits and other groups essential to a well-functioning civil society.
In the United States there has been some progress in this area. According to the Reporters Committee for a Free Press,
…as of July, 2024, 34 states and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws, including Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
There’s a fair number of red states among the blues in this list, including Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas, but not North Dakota. Ironically, some of these states have also been among the most aggressive in passing anti-protest laws restricting assembly, speech, and common organizational actions.
This pushback is worth following to see if works. What is obvious is that no nonprofit anywhere has deep enough pockets to block billionaires and their front operations, where money is no limit.