How Corporate Security Weaponized Law and Surveillance Against NoDAPL at Standing Rock Reservation

Abstract

The struggle over the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in 2016 and 2017 represented a fundamental transformation in the policing of American social movements. This research report provides an exhaustive analysis of the convergence between private security contractors, state law enforcement, and federal intelligence agencies in the suppression of the "NoDAPL" movement. Utilizing leaked internal documents from the security firm TigerSwan, court transcripts from the landmark 2025 Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace trial, and recent federal regulatory filings, we reconstruct the "counter-insurgency" (COIN) model applied to Indigenous water protectors. The analysis reveals a systematic strategy to reframe environmental activism as a national security threat ("jihadist insurgency"), the deployment of military-grade surveillance technologies (IMSI catchers, aerial downlinks), and a subsequent era of "lawfare" designed to bankrupt non-profit advocacy groups through the weaponization of defamation and racketeering statutes. We conclude by examining the bureaucratic entrenchment of this pipeline through the December 2025 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), arguing that the "social cost" of such infrastructure projects—measured in community trauma and the erosion of civil liberties—remains dangerously unquantified in modern regulatory frameworks.

1. Introduction: The Convergence at Cannonball River In Standing Rock Reservation

1.1 The Landscape of Conflict

In the autumn of 2016, the rolling plains of North Dakota, specifically the confluence of the Cannonball and Missouri Rivers, became the stage for a historic collision between Indigenous sovereignty and energy infrastructure. The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), a $3.8 billion project spearheaded by Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), was designed to transport crude oil from the Bakken shale fields to refineries in Illinois.¹ However, the proposed route crossed beneath Lake Oahe, the primary water source for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and traversed lands claimed by the tribe under the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851).

What began as a small "spirit camp" established by tribal historian LaDonna Brave Bull Allard to pray for the water swelled into a massive, self-organizing city of "Water Protectors." At its height, the Oceti Sakowin camp housed thousands of people, including representatives from over 300 federally recognized tribes—the largest gathering of Native American nations in more than a century.¹

However, beneath the visible surface of flags and prayer circles, a parallel and invisible infrastructure was being assembled. Energy Transfer Partners hired TigerSwan, a private security firm founded by retired U.S. military special operations personnel, to manage the security of the pipeline construction. This decision marked a pivotal moment in the history of domestic protest policing. Unlike traditional security guards who might man a gate or check badges, TigerSwan operated as a private intelligence agency, importing the tactics, technology, and terminology of the Global War on Terror directly onto American soil.³

1.2 Theoretical Framework: The Securitization of Dissent

To understand the events at Standing Rock, one must employ the sociological framework of the "securitization of dissent." This concept describes the process by which political opposition is transformed from a matter of public debate—managed through dialogue and standard policing—into an existential security threat requiring emergency measures, surveillance, and the suspension of normative civil liberties.⁵

At Standing Rock, this securitization was driven by three interlocking processes:

1. The Privatization of Intelligence: The outsourcing of surveillance and threat assessment to private firms like TigerSwan, which are not subject to the same constitutional restraints (such as the Fourth Amendment) or public oversight (Freedom of Information Act) as public law enforcement agencies.⁴

2. The Rhetorical Reframing of Activism: The deliberate use of "insurgency" language to describe non-violent civil disobedience, thereby justifying a militarized response.³

3. The Corporatization of Law: The use of strategic litigation (SLAPP suits) to redefine advocacy as criminal conspiracy, culminating in the massive financial verdicts seen in 2025.²

This report serves as a deep-dive autopsy of these mechanisms. By examining the "drilled-down" details of the TigerSwan operation—exposed through leaked documents obtained by The Intercept and analyzed by the Drilled news project—we can see the granular mechanics of how a corporation attempted to defeat a social movement not by winning the argument, but by breaking the psychological and organizational spine of its opposition.

2. The Privatization of Force: TigerSwan and the COIN Model

2.1 Origins of the Shadow Army

TigerSwan was not a standard security guard company; it was a specialized contractor born out of the U.S. military interventions in the Middle East. Founded by James Reese, a retired commander of the elite Delta Force, the company built its reputation providing security and intelligence services in conflict zones like Iraq and Afghanistan.⁴ When they were retained by Energy Transfer Partners, they did not leave their wartime doctrine behind. Instead, they transposed the framework of "Counter-Insurgency" (COIN) onto the plains of North Dakota.

COIN doctrine is premised on the idea that in modern warfare, the "enemy" is often indistinguishable from the civilian population. Therefore, victory requires "full-spectrum dominance" over the "human terrain"—understanding the social networks, beliefs, and vulnerabilities of the population to manipulate them and isolate the insurgents.⁹

2.2 The Narrative of "Jihad" on the Prairie

One of the most startling revelations from the leaked TigerSwan documents is the explicit use of "War on Terror" terminology to describe Indigenous activists. In daily "Situation Reports" (SITREPs) sent to Energy Transfer executives, TigerSwan analysts consistently pathologized the protesters, stripping them of their political legitimacy and recasting them as religious extremists.

The "Jihadist" Comparison:

TigerSwan documents frequently compared the anti-DAPL movement to "jihadist" insurgencies.3 This was not merely a lazy metaphor; it was an operational classification. By labeling the Water Protectors as "jihadists," the security firm unlocked a specific set of psychological and tactical responses among their own personnel and the law enforcement officers they advised.

• Islamophobic Tropes: The reports claimed there was a "strong female Shia following" within the camps.³ This assertion was sociologically absurd—the camp was overwhelmingly Indigenous, practicing Lakota spiritual traditions mixed with Christian denominations. However, the introduction of "Shia" imagery was designed to trigger specific threat perceptions associated with Middle Eastern sectarian violence.¹¹

• The "Palestinian" Connection: Reports flagged the "presence of additional Palestinians in the camp" as a dynamic requiring "further examination".³ This racialized surveillance attempted to link the Indigenous sovereignty movement with international geopolitical conflicts, aiming to heighten the anxiety of local North Dakota authorities who were unfamiliar with such global dynamics.¹¹

Strategic Function of the Rhetoric:

Why would a security firm use such inaccurate terminology? The answer lies in the "profit motive of insecurity." Private security contracts are lucrative; TigerSwan's services reportedly cost millions of dollars. To justify this expense, the firm needed to present the threat as sophisticated, dangerous, and foreign. If the protesters were simply local grandmothers concerned about water quality, a militarized response would be deemed excessive. If they were a "jihadist insurgency" infiltrated by foreign actors, then the expense—and the harsh tactics—were justified.4

2.3 Human Terrain Analysis and Infiltration

Beyond rhetoric, TigerSwan employed "Human Terrain System" (HTS) analysis to map the social structure of the movement. HTS was a controversial program used by the U.S. Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, where anthropologists and social scientists were embedded with combat units to map tribal dynamics.¹⁰

At Standing Rock, TigerSwan analysts mapped the relationships between the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council, the Red Warrior Camp (the more militant frontline group), and the Sacred Stone Camp (the original prayer camp). The goal was to identify "rifts" and exploit them.³

• Fabricating Division: Leaked documents discuss strategies to "instigate rifts between activists".³ This involved planting disinformation or using infiltrators to spread rumors that certain leaders were stealing money or working for the police.

• The Psychological Toll: Waniya Locke, a Standing Rock tribal member, testified to the effectiveness of these tactics. She described the community being "brutalized" not just by physical weapons but by "specific propaganda that was put out on a national level".¹² The constant fear of infiltration created a paranoid environment where trust—the currency of any social movement—was devalued. When activists cannot trust that the person sleeping in the tent next to them is not a spy, collective action becomes paralyzed.

This strategy mirrors the FBI's COINTELPRO operations against the American Indian Movement (AIM) in the 1970s, but with a crucial difference: it was being executed by a private corporation for the benefit of shareholders, with the state acting as a junior partner.⁹

3. The Technology of the Panopticon: Surveillance Systems

The "NoDAPL" camps were subjected to one of the most intensive surveillance operations in domestic U.S. history. The "surveillance state" descended on the reservation, utilizing technologies designed for electronic warfare.¹

3.1 Aerial Surveillance and Psychological Operations

The sky above the camps was rarely empty. Activists reported the constant presence of helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, and drones monitoring their movements.³

• Visual Intelligence (VISINT): TigerSwan used aerial platforms to track the movement of caravans and identify the locations of key leaders.

• Psychological Impact: The constant noise and presence of low-flying aircraft served a psychological function known as "presence patrols." By denying the campers silence and privacy, the security forces aimed to induce exhaustion and stress.¹ This is a form of low-intensity psychological warfare designed to degrade the morale of the "enemy" population.

3.2 The IMSI Catcher (Stingray) Phenomenon

Perhaps the most invasive technology deployed was the IMSI catcher, often referred to by the brand name Stingray. While official confirmation is often redacted from police reports, the technical signatures observed by security researchers and the descriptions of phone behavior by activists strongly suggest their widespread use.¹³

How IMSI Catchers Work (Descriptive Explanation):

An IMSI catcher is a device that mimics a legitimate cell phone tower. Mobile phones are programmed to constantly seek the strongest signal to ensure connectivity. The IMSI catcher exploits this by broadcasting a signal that is slightly stronger than the surrounding commercial towers (like Verizon or AT&T).

1. The Masquerade: The device tricks all mobile phones in a defined radius into connecting to it instead of the real network.

2. Identity Capture: Once connected, the device forces the phone to transmit its International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI), a unique numeric fingerprint associated with the user's SIM card. This allows the operator to identify exactly who is present in a crowd.¹³

3. Forced Downgrade: To intercept the content of calls or text messages, the device often forces the phone to "downgrade" from secure 4G/LTE networks to older 2G protocols. 2G networks lack the mutual authentication security features of modern standards, making them vulnerable to "man-in-the-middle" attacks where the interceptor can listen in.¹³

Deployment at Standing Rock:

Water Protectors frequently reported their phones behaving erratically: batteries draining instantly (a side effect of the phone constantly trying to handshake with the fake tower), calls dropping specifically during police actions, and the inability to livestream events.14

• The "Check-In" Viral Moment: The massive anxiety regarding this surveillance led to a viral Facebook event where over a million people "checked in" to Standing Rock remotely. The intent was to flood the data pool and confuse the police algorithms.¹⁵ While the Morton County Sheriff denied monitoring Facebook check-ins, this denial missed the point: they were monitoring the physical electromagnetic spectrum, not just the social media app. The public's intuitive grasp of being watched was correct, even if their understanding of the specific technology (Facebook vs. IMSI catcher) was imprecise.

3.3 The "Gray Zone" of Private-Public Intelligence

The deployment of these technologies highlights the legal "gray zone" of corporate counter-insurgency. If the Morton County Sheriff wanted to tap the phones of 5,000 people, they would theoretically need warrants (though the Patriot Act loosened these restrictions). However, if a private contractor like TigerSwan collects this data and then "voluntarily" shares it with law enforcement as a "suspicious activity report," the constitutional protections are bypassed.⁵

This public-private partnership allowed the state to benefit from illegal or extra-legal surveillance without bearing the direct legal liability. The "Fusion Centers"—state-run intelligence hubs—became the clearinghouses where corporate intelligence from TigerSwan was laundered into actionable police intelligence.⁷

4. Lawfare: The Weaponization of the Courts (2017–2025)

Following the physical clearance of the camps in February 2017, the conflict migrated from the battlefield to the courtroom. Energy Transfer Partners launched a legal offensive designed to criminalize the organizational structure of environmental advocacy. This strategy, known as "Lawfare," utilized Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) to seek catastrophic financial damages.⁸

4.1 The RICO Gambit

In August 2017, Energy Transfer filed a federal lawsuit against Greenpeace, Earth First!, and other entities under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.¹⁷ RICO was drafted in the 1970s to dismantle the Mafia, allowing prosecutors to target the leadership of a criminal organization for the crimes ordered and committed by their underlings.

The Theory:

ETP argued that Greenpeace was not a legitimate advocacy group but a "criminal enterprise" that defrauded donors by spreading misinformation about the pipeline to raise funds, which were then used to incite "eco-terrorism".8 This argument attempted to conflate fundraising with racketeering and protest organization with criminal conspiracy.

The Dismissal:

In 2019, a federal judge dismissed the RICO claims with prejudice. The court found that while the defendants' rhetoric was sharp, ETP had failed to prove the existence of a racketeering enterprise or a pattern of wire fraud. The judge noted that calling a pipeline "black snake" or "unsafe" is protected political speech, not fraud.17 However, the court declined jurisdiction over the state-law claims (defamation, trespass), leaving the door open for ETP to refile in a more favorable venue.

4.2 The North Dakota State Trial (2025)

Energy Transfer refiled the case in North Dakota state court, a venue deeply economically dependent on the oil and gas industry. The charges were narrowed to defamation, trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy. The trial, Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace, concluded in March 2025.¹⁹

The Verdict:

On March 19, 2025, a Morton County jury delivered a stunning verdict, finding Greenpeace entities liable for over $660 million in damages.19

• Compensatory Damages: ~$264 million (for construction delays and security costs).

• Punitive Damages: ~$402 million (to punish the defendants).

The Legal logic of Liability:

The jury found that Greenpeace Inc. (USA) and Greenpeace International had defamed Energy Transfer and interfered with their business. Crucially, the jury accepted the argument of "vicarious liability" for the actions of protesters. Although Greenpeace has a strict non-violence policy, the plaintiff successfully argued that by funding the camps, providing training, and amplifying the message, Greenpeace "aided and abetted" the individuals who trespassed on the construction sites or damaged equipment.20

The "Misinformation" Argument:

A key component of the defamation claim was the list of statements Greenpeace made about the pipeline. ETP argued that statements claiming the pipeline "poisoned the water" or crossed "sacred treaty lands" were objectively false.21

• Water Quality: ETP argued the pipeline had not leaked yet (at the time of the statements), making the claim defamatory.

• Treaty Lands: ETP relied on current U.S. property law, which does not recognize the 1851 Treaty boundaries as active title, to claim they were building on private property. Greenpeace argued these were matters of opinion and Indigenous historical interpretation, which should be protected speech.²⁰

4.3 Implications for the Future of Advocacy

The $660 million verdict represents an existential threat to the non-profit sector. If this precedent stands on appeal, any organization that supports a protest—whether by sending food, providing legal observers, or posting on social media—could be held liable for the illegal acts of any individual attendee.

• The Chilling Effect: Small NGOs will be unable to purchase liability insurance for protest activities. Activism will become the domain of only those with nothing to lose, or it will be "institutionalized" into toothless, permitted zones that pose no disruption to corporate interests.²

• International Reaction: In response, Greenpeace International filed a countersuit in the Netherlands under the European Union's new Anti-SLAPP directive. This directive is designed to penalize corporations that use cross-border litigation to silence critics. This sets up a trans-Atlantic legal collision between American corporate property rights and European speech protections.¹⁸

5. The Bureaucratic Battlefield: The 2025 FEIS and the "Social Cost"

While the legal battles addressed the past, the regulatory war over the pipeline's future continued. In 2020, a federal judge vacated the easement for the pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe, ruling that the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) had violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to produce a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).²³

5.1 The Endless Review Process

The pipeline continued to operate without a valid easement while the USACE conducted the review—a situation characterized by tribal lawyers as an ongoing illegal occupation.²³ The review process dragged on for years, delayed by political shifts in Washington and the complexity of the analysis.

The December 2025 Final EIS:

In December 2025, the USACE finally released the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).24 To the dismay of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and environmentalists, the Omaha District recommended that the pipeline operations be maintained and the easement reinstated.

• The Decision: The Corps selected an alternative that allowed the pipeline to remain in place with "additional conditions" regarding leak detection and emergency response.²⁶

• The Timeline: A 30-day waiting period was initiated, with the final Record of Decision (ROD) expected by January 20, 2026.²⁴

5.2 The Debate Over "Social Cost"

A critical failure of the FEIS, according to academic and legal critics, was its refusal to adequately quantify the "Social Cost" of the project.

The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC):

Environmental law has increasingly moved toward quantifying the climate damage of projects using the "Social Cost of Carbon" metric—a dollar figure assigned to each ton of CO2 emitted. Critics argued the USACE failed to account for the downstream emissions of the oil transported by DAPL, treating the pipeline as a neutral conduit rather than a driver of fossil fuel consumption.27

The Social Cost of Policing:

A novel and burgeoning area of socio-legal research argues that Environmental Impact Statements must also consider the "Social Cost of Policing".29

• The Argument: If a project is controversial enough to require a militarized police response, the trauma inflicted on the community, the cost of the police overtime, and the erosion of trust in democratic institutions are "environmental impacts" on the human environment.³¹

• Standing Rock Context: The tribe specifically requested that the "mental health" impacts of the pipeline—described as a "looming cancer" causing anxiety and trauma—be assessed.²⁷ The presence of TigerSwan, the dogs, and the sound cannons created a "social trauma" that persists years later. By excluding these costs from the cost-benefit analysis, the USACE effectively treated the violence of the state response as an externality—a cost borne by the victims, not the project developers.³¹

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Cost Externalities in the DAPL Conflict

Cost Category	Borne By	Description	Quantified in FEIS?
Construction Delays	Energy Transfer	Costs due to protests/blockades ($264M claimed in trial).	Yes (Indirectly via trial)
Security Operations	Energy Transfer	Payments to TigerSwan for surveillance/COIN.	No (Internal cost)
Police Overtime	North Dakota Taxpayers	$38M+ for Morton County Sheriff mobilization.	No
Climate Damage	Global Public	Downstream CO2 emissions from Bakken oil.	Partially (Minimally assessed)
Social Trauma	Standing Rock Tribe	Mental health impact, loss of cultural cohesion, fear.	No (Dismissed as outside scope)
Civil Liberties	Activists/Public	Chilling effect on free speech; privacy loss via IMSI catchers.	No

6. Sociological Implications: The New Era of Corporate Sovereignty

6.1 The "Critical Infrastructure" Legislative Wave

The securitization of dissent has not been limited to ad-hoc tactics; it has been codified into statutory law. Following the protests, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—a conservative legislative advocacy group funded in part by fossil fuel interests—drafted model legislation known as the "Critical Infrastructure Protection Act".³²

The ALEC Model:

Since 2017, over 17 states have adopted versions of this bill. These laws:

1. Felony Trespass: Elevate trespassing on "critical infrastructure" (pipelines, refineries, construction yards) from a misdemeanor to a felony.

2. Conspirator Liability: Explicitly allow the state to fine organizations (like Greenpeace) up to ten times the amount of the individual fine if they are found to have "supported" the trespasser.³⁴

This legislative wave completes the cycle initiated by TigerSwan. What the private security firm did through surveillance, the state legislatures have now done through statute. They have criminalized the proximity to fossil fuel infrastructure, creating "legal blast zones" where the First Amendment is effectively suspended.³⁵

6.2 The Gray Zone and Colonialism 2.0

The events at Standing Rock must be understood as a continuation of the colonial project, updated for the 21st century. In the 19th century, the U.S. Cavalry protected the railroad surveyors to open the land for extraction. In 2016, TigerSwan and the Morton County Sheriff protected the pipeline surveyors for the same purpose.¹⁰

The "Gray Zone" refers to the blurring of the lines between:

• War and Peace: The use of COIN tactics in a domestic civil dispute.

• Public and Private: The fusion of corporate profit motives with state police powers.

• Truth and Propaganda: The manufacturing of "jihadist" narratives to justify violence.

The leaked TigerSwan documents reveal that for the modern corporation, a social movement is not a democratic challenge to be engaged with, but a "viral contagion" or an "insurgency" to be neutralized. The "human terrain" of the reservation was simply data to be mined, just as the shale beneath it was oil to be extracted.⁹

7. Conclusion

The trajectory from the private security dogs attacking protesters in September 2016 to the $660 million verdict in March 2025 illustrates a comprehensive, multi-decade strategy to immunize the fossil fuel industry from democratic accountability.

The Record of Decision expected in January 2026 will likely cement the physical presence of the Dakota Access Pipeline. However, the legacy of Standing Rock is not just the steel in the ground; it is the precedent set for how the state and corporations will handle the inevitable climate insurrections of the future. The "Standing Rock Model"—involving private intelligence, aggressive lawfare, and "critical infrastructure" criminalization—has become the standard operating procedure for crushing dissent.

As the FEIS comment period closes, the "social cost" of this model remains unpaid. The trauma inflicted on the water protectors, the erosion of privacy through IMSI catchers, and the chilling of speech through SLAPP suits constitute a "shadow debt" that American democracy will be paying down for generations. The prairie was not just a protest camp; it was a testing ground for the future of corporate sovereignty, and the results of that test are now written in the court judgments and federal registers of 2025.

Works cited

1. The Surveillance State Descends on the Dakota Access Pipeline Spirit Camp | ACLU, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/surveillance-state-descends-dakota-access-pipeline-spirit-camp

2. Fossil fuel firm's $300m trial against Greenpeace to begin: 'Weaponizing the judicial system' | Dakota Access pipeline | The Guardian, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/20/greenpeace-energy-transfer-dakota-pipeline-trial

3. Why Did a Private Security Contractor Treat Standing Rock Protesters Like 'Jihadists'?, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-did-private-security-contractor-treat-standing-rock

4. Inside the military tactics used during Standing Rock - High Country News, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.hcn.org/articles/the-government-used-military-tactics-to-supress-nodapl-activists/

5. Peter Dauvergne and Genevieve Lebaron's Protest Inc. is an important and timely book dealing with a key feature of the modern political landscape - H-Net Reviews, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=41954

6. Interpellating 'the people' against environmentalists: The authoritarian populist response to environmental mobilizations in Turkey | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361721126_Interpellating_'the_people'_against_environmentalists_The_authoritarian_populist_response_to_environmental_mobilizations_in_Turkey

7. Standing Rock Documents - Drilled Media, accessed January 8, 2026, https://drilled.media/documents/1ed15ccd-a1cf-4f20-aaff-483b4714ab57

8. The Dakota Access Pipeline Company Is Abusing the Judicial System to Silence Dissent, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/dakota-access-pipeline-company-abusing-judicial-system-silence

9. Investigative Aesthetics - Conflicts and Commons in the Politics of Truth Matthew Fuller and Eyal Weizman - UAP, accessed January 8, 2026, https://uap.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Matthew-Fuller-Eyal-Weizman-Investigative-Aesthetics-Conflicts-and-Commons-in-the-Politics-of-Truth-2021-Verso.pdf

10. Savage Ecology: War and Geopolitics at the End of the World 1478004843, 9781478004844 - DOKUMEN.PUB, accessed January 8, 2026, https://dokumen.pub/savage-ecology-war-and-geopolitics-at-the-end-of-the-world-1478004843-9781478004844.html

11. Why Did a Private Security Contractor Treat Standing Rock Protesters Like 'Jihadists'?, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.aclusd.org/news/why-did-private-security-contractor-treat-standing-rock-protesters-jihadists/

12. Seven Years Later, an Environmental Impact Statement for the Dakota Access Pipeline - Drilled Media, accessed January 8, 2026, https://drilled.media/news/drilled-trfst-standingrock

13. IMSI-catcher - Wikipedia, accessed January 8, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSI-catcher

14. White-Stingray: Evaluating IMSI Catchers Detection Applications - USENIX, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/woot17/woot17-paper-park.pdf

15. Investigating Surveillance Around Standing Rock - Just Security, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.justsecurity.org/34449/investigating-surveillance-standing-rock/

16. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. v. Greenpeace International - The Climate Litigation Database, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.climatecasechart.com/document/energy-transfer-equity-l-p-v-greenpeace-international_82fd

17. Energy Transfer Partners v. Krystal Two Bulls | EarthRights International, accessed January 8, 2026, https://earthrights.org/case/etp-v-krystal-two-bulls/

18. Greenpeace International v. Energy Transfer - The Climate Litigation Database, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.climatecasechart.com/document/greenpeace-international-v-energy-transfer_29bd

19. Fighting Energy Transfer's SLAPP Lawsuit - Greenpeace, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/energy-transfer-lawsuit/

20. Energy Transfer vs. Greenpeace trial analysis, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/energy-transfer-vs-greenpeace-trial-analysis/

21. STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF MORTON SOUTH CENTRAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT Derrick Braaten, ND Bar # 06394 BRAATEN L - Greenpeace, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-international-stateless/2025/02/20240503-GP-Brief-ISO-MSJ-on-Statements-re-Damage-to-Cultural-Sites_Redacted.pdf

22. STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF MORTON SOUTH CENTRAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT ENERGY TRANSFER LP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. - Greenpeace, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-international-stateless/2025/02/20240503-Brief-ISO-GPIs-MSJ-on-All-Counts_Redacted.pdf

23. et-20250331 - SEC.gov, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1276187/000127618725000056/et-20250331.htm

24. USACE publishes final Dakota Access Pipeline environmental impact statement, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/4364837/usace-publishes-nal-dakota-access-pipeline-environmental-impact-statement/

25. USACE News, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News/?Page=157

26. Army Corps outlines path to keep Dakota Access running - POLITICO Pro, accessed January 8, 2026, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/12/23/army-corps-outlines-path-to-keep-dakota-access-running-00703568

27. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's Comments on July DEIS - Earthjustice, accessed January 8, 2026, https://earthjustice.org/document/standing-rock-sioux-tribes-comments-on-july-deis

28. Scoping for the New Mexico Q1 2026 Oil and Gas Lease Parcel Sales (DOI-BLM-NM - Western Environmental Law Center, accessed January 8, 2026, https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/2026-Q1-NM-Scoping-Cmts.pdf

29. Social Impact Evaluation Guide - State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/55031/further-guidance-05-social-impact-evaluation-guide.pdf

30. Why We Need Police - Scholarship Archive, accessed January 8, 2026, https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/context/faculty_scholarship/article/5352/viewcontent/McCrary_Why_We_Need_Police.pdf

31. Expert Report of James David Ballard Ph.D - Attachment to Don't Waste Michigan, et al, Petition to Intervene. - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1825/ML18257A335.pdf

32. Protecting Americans' Right to Peaceful Assembly From “Critical Infrastructure” and Other Anti- Protest Laws, accessed January 8, 2026, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO02/20220914/115106/HHRG-117-GO02-Wstate-PageE-20220914.pdf

33. States Are Criminalizing Environmental Protest | Sierra Club, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2023-3-fall/notes-here-there/states-are-criminalizing-environmental-protest

34. The anti-protest bill is back – and just as bad as ever - ACLU of Wyoming, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.aclu-wy.org/news/anti-protest-bill-back-and-just-bad-ever/

35. Critical Infrastructure Bills: Targeting Protesters through Extreme Penalties - ICNL, accessed January 8, 2026, https://www.icnl.org/wp-content/uploads/CI-Bill-Briefer-final-formatted.pdf