**
In a pivotal ruling, a North Dakota judge has confirmed a $345 million judgement against Greenpeace, stemming from the environmental group’s participation in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. This decision emerges from a lawsuit initiated by Energy Transfer, the pipeline’s operator, which accused Greenpeace of unlawful actions that allegedly hindered construction and spread misinformation about the project.
Court Ruling Solidifies Damages Award
On 27 February 2026, Judge James Gion finalised the judgement, reducing the original jury-awarded damages of $667 million handed down in March 2023. The judge’s decision to cut the award by nearly half aligns with his previous ruling from October, signalling a definitive stance in this ongoing legal battle.
Greenpeace has publicly expressed its intention to challenge this ruling, asserting the case is an attempt to undermine free speech. Marco Simons, the interim general counsel for Greenpeace USA, articulated the organisation’s position: “Speaking out against corporations that cause environmental harm should never be deemed unlawful.”
Energy Transfer’s Perspective
Energy Transfer hailed the judgement as a crucial step towards holding Greenpeace accountable for what it described as “unlawful and damaging actions.” The company is currently evaluating its options for further legal action to ensure Greenpeace bears full responsibility for the alleged disruptions during the pipeline’s construction.
The Dakota Access Pipeline project, which commenced in 2016 and was completed in 2017, has been a focal point of environmental and tribal protests. Activists argued that the pipeline could contaminate local water supplies and contribute to the worsening climate crisis, leading to widespread opposition from various advocacy groups.
The Background of the Dispute
The dispute traces back to 2017 when Energy Transfer initially filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace in federal court, claiming the organisation had disseminated false information about the pipeline and financially supported protests that obstructed construction. The jury’s verdict in March included damages for defamation, trespassing, and conspiracy, underscoring the contentious nature of the case.
In response to the ongoing litigation, Greenpeace has countersued Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, invoking a European law designed to combat lawsuits that aim to intimidate or silence activists. This counteraction remains unresolved, adding another layer of complexity to the situation.
Why it Matters
This legal battle underscores the fraught relationship between environmental activism and corporate interests, particularly in the context of significant infrastructure projects. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications, not only for Greenpeace but also for environmental advocates globally, as it raises critical questions about the boundaries of free speech and the legal protections available to those who challenge powerful corporate entities. As the case continues to unfold, it serves as a bellwether for the future of activism in the face of aggressive legal pushback.
