A North Dakota judge has upheld a substantial $345 million judgement against Greenpeace, stemming from the environmental organisation’s involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The ruling, delivered by Judge James Gion, represents a significant reduction from an original jury award of approximately $667 million, which had been announced in March of this year.
Details of the Ruling
The decision, finalised on 27 February 2026, aligns with Gion’s earlier ruling in October, which slashed the jury’s damages award nearly in half. The lawsuit was initiated by Energy Transfer, the pipeline company responsible for the DAPL, which accused Greenpeace of playing a pivotal role in the obstruction of construction activities between 2016 and 2017.
The Dakota Access Pipeline, which runs near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, has been a focal point of contention owing to environmental concerns and the potential threat it poses to local water supplies. The pipeline is reported to transport around 40% of the oil extracted from North Dakota’s Bakken region.
Greenpeace’s Response
In response to the ruling, Greenpeace announced its intention to seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Marco Simons, interim general counsel for Greenpeace USA, labelled the lawsuit as “a blatant attempt to silence free speech,” emphasising the organisation’s commitment to advocate against corporate practices that endanger the environment.
Simons stated, “Speaking out against corporations that cause environmental harm should never be deemed unlawful,” underscoring the group’s stance on environmental activism and its broader implications for civil discourse.
Implications for Energy Transfer
Energy Transfer welcomed the judge’s ruling, describing it as a crucial step in holding Greenpeace accountable for what it claims were unlawful actions during the DAPL construction. The company noted that it is currently evaluating its options for further legal action to ensure full accountability from Greenpeace.
The initial lawsuit alleged that Greenpeace engaged in spreading misinformation about the pipeline, as well as financially supporting protests that sought to disrupt construction operations. The jury’s March verdict included findings of defamation, trespassing, and conspiracy.
Ongoing Litigation
The legal battle is not confined to North Dakota alone. In a counter-move, Greenpeace has launched a lawsuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, invoking a European law designed to protect activists from harassment and intimidation through legal means. This ongoing litigation highlights the international dimensions of the conflict and the varying legal frameworks that activists and corporations operate within.
Why it Matters
The ruling against Greenpeace not only underscores the legal challenges faced by environmental activists but also raises critical questions about the limits of free speech in the context of corporate accountability. As public sentiment increasingly favours environmental protection, the outcome of this case could set a precedent for how similar lawsuits are handled in the future, potentially influencing the landscape of environmental activism and corporate governance worldwide. The implications extend beyond the courtroom, affecting public discourse, advocacy strategies, and the broader fight against climate change.
