A North Dakota judge has officially confirmed a substantial $345 million verdict against Greenpeace, stemming from the environmental organisation’s involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. This ruling, delivered by Judge James Gion, represents a significant reduction from an initial $667 million damages award that had been granted to pipeline operator Energy Transfer by a jury in March.
Final Ruling Reduces Jury Award
Judge Gion’s decision, finalised on 27 February 2026, adjusts the prior jury award by nearly half, underscoring the contentious legal battle between Greenpeace and Energy Transfer. In their statement, Greenpeace emphasised their intention to pursue a new trial and, if necessary, escalate the case to the North Dakota Supreme Court. They described the lawsuit as a “blatant attempt to silence free speech.”
Marco Simons, the interim general counsel for Greenpeace USA and the Greenpeace Fund, voiced strong opposition to the judgment, asserting, “Speaking out against corporations that cause environmental harm should never be deemed unlawful.”
Energy Transfer’s Response
In a statement following the ruling, Energy Transfer characterised the decision as a crucial step towards holding Greenpeace accountable for what it claims are unlawful and detrimental actions during the pipeline’s construction. The company indicated that it is considering further steps to ensure full accountability from the environmental group.
The Dakota Access Pipeline project, which runs near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, began construction in 2016 and was completed in 2017. It now plays a pivotal role in transporting approximately 40% of the oil produced in North Dakota’s Bakken region. The project faced intense opposition from environmental and tribal advocacy groups, who argued that it posed significant risks to local water supplies and exacerbated the ongoing climate crisis.
The Origins of the Legal Dispute
Energy Transfer originally filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace in a North Dakota federal court in 2017. The company accused the organisation of disseminating false information about the Dakota Access Pipeline and allegedly compensating protesters to disrupt construction activities. The jury’s verdict in March included damages related to defamation, trespassing, and conspiracy.
In a counter-action, Greenpeace initiated legal proceedings against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands in February, leveraging a European law designed to combat lawsuits intended to intimidate or silence activists. This litigation is still underway, highlighting the ongoing tensions between corporate interests and environmental advocacy.
Why it Matters
The ruling against Greenpeace not only raises questions about the financial repercussions of activism but also sets a concerning precedent regarding the legal challenges faced by environmental organisations. As the struggle for ecological justice intensifies, this case underscores the broader implications for free speech and the rights of activists to protest corporate practices that threaten the environment. The outcome of potential appeals may well shape the landscape of environmental activism and corporate accountability for years to come.
