A North Dakota court has recently upheld a significant ruling against Greenpeace, ordering the environmental organisation to pay $345 million to Energy Transfer for its involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. This decision follows a previous jury award of $667 million, which was substantially reduced by Judge James Gion. Greenpeace has announced plans to contest the ruling, claiming it undermines free speech rights.
Court Ruling Finalised
On 27 February 2026, Judge James Gion finalised the judgement, aligning with his earlier ruling from October that cut the original jury award nearly in half. The lawsuit stems from Greenpeace’s protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, which began construction in 2016 and was completed in 2017. The pipeline now carries an estimated 40% of the oil extracted from North Dakota’s Bakken region.
In a response to the ruling, Energy Transfer characterised the decision as a crucial step in holding Greenpeace accountable for its alleged unlawful actions during the protests. “We are analysing possible next steps to ensure that they are held fully accountable,” the company stated.
Greenpeace’s Position
Greenpeace has vehemently opposed the judgement, asserting that it represents a blatant attempt to suppress free expression. Marco Simons, the interim general counsel for Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund, condemned the lawsuit, stating, “Speaking out against corporations that cause environmental harm should never be deemed unlawful.” The organisation is preparing to seek a new trial and may escalate the matter to the North Dakota Supreme Court if necessary.
The environmental group argues that their activism is vital for raising awareness about the threats posed by industrial projects to local ecosystems and communities. They have also initiated a countersuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, leveraging European legislation designed to protect activists from strategic lawsuits aimed at harassment.
Background of the Dakota Access Pipeline
The Dakota Access Pipeline project has been a focal point of controversy since its inception. Environmental organisations and tribal advocacy groups have consistently opposed the pipeline, expressing concerns over potential water contamination and its contribution to climate change. The project has faced intense scrutiny and public opposition, particularly from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which argues that the pipeline jeopardises their water supply and sacred lands.
Energy Transfer’s lawsuit against Greenpeace commenced in federal court in North Dakota in 2017. The company accused Greenpeace of disseminating misleading information about the pipeline and financially supporting protests that disrupted construction efforts. The jury’s verdict in March included findings of defamation, trespassing, and conspiracy against Greenpeace.
Ongoing Legal Battles
The legal conflict between Greenpeace and Energy Transfer is far from over. With Greenpeace’s countersuit still in progress, the case underscores the ongoing tensions between environmental activism and corporate interests. As both parties prepare for potential further legal actions, the implications of this ruling could resonate beyond this specific case.
Why it Matters
This ruling is emblematic of the broader struggle between environmental activism and corporate power. It raises important questions about the boundaries of free speech and the legal repercussions that activists may face when opposing large-scale industrial projects. As global attention increasingly turns towards climate change and environmental protection, the outcomes of such legal battles will likely influence the future landscape of activism and corporate accountability.
