In a significant legal development, a North Dakota judge has mandated that Greenpeace must pay approximately $345 million following its involvement in protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline that took place nearly a decade ago. The ruling, delivered by Judge James Gion, is set to ignite a lengthy appeals process as the environmental organisation contends with financial challenges that it claims prohibit them from fulfilling the judgment.
Court Ruling Details
Judge Gion’s formal order, which is expected to be signed imminently, requires several entities of Greenpeace to compensate Energy Transfer, the company behind the controversial pipeline project. This ruling follows a jury’s previous findings that held Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and the Greenpeace Fund Inc. liable for defamation and various other claims related to the protests. The initial jury verdict in 2025 awarded damages totalling an eye-watering $666.9 million, though Judge Gion later reduced this figure by nearly half. The specifics of the final damages remain unclear, but they continue to pose a substantial financial burden for the non-profit.
The verdict has already prompted both Greenpeace and Energy Transfer to prepare for appeals, as both parties contest different aspects of the ruling.
Background on the Protests
The legal battle stems from widespread protests during 2016 and 2017, when thousands gathered near the Missouri River to oppose the pipeline’s construction, citing environmental concerns and threats to the water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The tribe has been vocal in its opposition, viewing the pipeline as a direct danger to their resources and rights.
The jury determined that Greenpeace USA was liable on all counts, including conspiracy and tortious interference, while the other two organisations faced liability on select claims. The ramifications of this ruling extend beyond financial penalties, as it raises broader questions about the impact of legal actions on environmental activism.
Financial Strain on Greenpeace
In a financial disclosure made late last year, Greenpeace USA reported assets totalling only $23 million, with available cash of merely $1.4 million. These figures starkly contrast with the hefty damages ordered by the court, leading the organisation to assert that it cannot afford the imposed penalties or continue its operations should the judgement be enforced.
Marco Simons, interim general counsel for Greenpeace USA, reiterated the group’s financial limitations, stating that as a mid-sized non-profit, they could not realistically pay hundreds of millions in damages. He expressed optimism regarding the appeal process, suggesting that the claims were unfounded and lacked sufficient evidence.
Implications for Activism
This lawsuit has sparked significant debate over the use of legal systems to potentially silence dissenters and critics. Greenpeace argues that the actions taken against them are a strategic attempt to undermine their efforts to advocate for environmental protection and free speech. In contrast, Energy Transfer maintains that the lawsuit is about accountability and adherence to the law, asserting that Greenpeace’s actions contributed to the delays and complications surrounding the pipeline’s construction.
At trial, Energy Transfer’s legal representatives accused Greenpeace of orchestrating a campaign to disrupt the project, including mobilising protesters and disseminating false information. However, defence attorneys for Greenpeace countered these claims, arguing that there was insufficient evidence linking the organisation to the actions of the protesters.
Why it Matters
The outcome of this case has far-reaching implications for both environmental activism and the legal landscape surrounding corporate accountability. As the appeals process unfolds, it raises critical questions about the balance of power between corporations and advocacy groups. The ramifications could set a precedent that either empowers or stifles grassroots movements, fundamentally shaping the future of environmental protests and the rights of organisations to voice their concerns against powerful industry players.