In a significant legal ruling, a North Dakota judge has ordered Greenpeace to pay approximately $345 million following a lawsuit tied to protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline. The decision, delivered by Judge James Gion, is rooted in claims of defamation and conspiracy stemming from the high-profile demonstrations that took place nearly a decade ago. Greenpeace, however, maintains that this case is far from over and asserts that the financial burden is insurmountable.
Legal Developments
The ruling, announced on February 25, 2026, culminates a lengthy legal battle initiated by Energy Transfer, the company behind the controversial pipeline. Judge Gion’s decision, which reduced the jury’s original award of $666.9 million, still leaves Greenpeace grappling with a staggering amount that it claims it cannot afford. The judge’s latest filing did not specify the final dollar amount, leaving both parties in a precarious position as they prepare for an impending appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
In 2025, a jury found Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund Inc. liable for various charges, including conspiracy and trespass. The jury’s verdict was a blow to the environmental organisation, which has long advocated against fossil fuel projects that threaten indigenous lands and water sources. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which has consistently opposed the pipeline, had rallied thousands of supporters to demonstrate against the construction in 2016 and 2017.
Financial Implications for Greenpeace
Greenpeace USA has publicly stated that the financial ramifications of the judgement could cripple its operations. In a filing last December, the organisation disclosed that its liquid assets totalled only £1.4 million, with total assets sitting at £23 million. Given this financial landscape, interim general counsel Marco Simons emphasised the challenge ahead.
“The reality for mid-sized nonprofits like ours is stark,” Simons remarked. “We simply do not have the resources to cover hundreds of millions in damages.” He reassured supporters that Greenpeace intends to fight back through the appeals process, citing potential legal grounds for overturning the jury’s verdict.
Activism Under Fire
Greenpeace has characterised the lawsuit as a strategic move aimed at stifling dissent and curbing the rights of activists. The organisation argues that the legal system is being weaponised against them in an attempt to silence voices that advocate for environmental justice. In contrast, Energy Transfer insists that the case is fundamentally about the legality of Greenpeace’s actions, not an infringement on free speech.
During the trial, Energy Transfer’s legal team claimed that Greenpeace had actively coordinated efforts to obstruct the pipeline’s construction, providing logistical support to protesters and disseminating misleading information about the project. However, Greenpeace’s attorneys contended that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate these allegations, arguing that the organisation had minimal involvement in the protests and did not cause any project delays.
The Path Forward
As both parties prepare for the appeals process, the implications of this case extend beyond the courtroom. It raises pressing questions about the intersection of environmental activism and corporate power, as well as the broader implications for non-profit organisations facing similar legal challenges.
Why it Matters
This ruling represents a pivotal moment in the fight for environmental justice, highlighting the lengths to which corporations may go to silence opposition. The outcome of the appeal could set a significant precedent for future activism and the legal protections afforded to organisations advocating for environmental causes. It serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle between corporate interests and grassroots movements, underscoring the urgent need for a legal framework that supports rather than stifles environmental advocacy.