**
In a significant legal ruling, a North Dakota judge has confirmed a $345 million judgement against Greenpeace, stemming from the environmental organisation’s involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). This final decision by Judge James Gion highlights the ongoing tension between corporate interests and environmental activism, particularly as the energy sector faces increasing scrutiny over its environmental impact.
Court Ruling Details
The judgement, finalised on February 27, 2026, followed a jury’s initial award of approximately $667 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the DAPL. However, in a move that reduced the financial liability, Judge Gion cut the awarded amount nearly in half, aligning with a preliminary decision made in October. The lawsuit accused Greenpeace of defamation, conspiracy, and trespassing during the protests that erupted against the pipeline’s construction.
Energy Transfer celebrated the ruling as a crucial step in holding Greenpeace accountable for what they termed “unlawful and damaging actions.” The company has indicated plans to evaluate further legal actions to ensure comprehensive accountability for Greenpeace’s conduct during the protests.
Greenpeace’s Response
In the wake of the ruling, Greenpeace has expressed its intention to seek a new trial, and if necessary, escalate the matter to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Marco Simons, interim general counsel at Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund, denounced the lawsuit as an assault on free speech, asserting that advocating against corporate practices that harm the environment should not be criminalised.
In a statement, Simons emphasised the organisation’s commitment to voicing concerns about environmental degradation, stating, “Speaking out against corporations that cause environmental harm should never be deemed unlawful.” The environmental group maintains that their actions were rooted in a commitment to protect communities and ecosystems.
Background of the Dakota Access Pipeline
The Dakota Access Pipeline project, which began construction in 2016 and was completed in 2017, has been a focal point for environmental activists and indigenous groups. The pipeline now transports about 40% of the oil produced in North Dakota’s Bakken region. Opponents of the project have long argued that it poses a significant threat to local water supplies and contributes to the broader climate crisis.
Energy Transfer originally filed its lawsuit against Greenpeace in federal court in North Dakota in 2017, alleging that the organisation disseminated misinformation about the pipeline and financially supported protests aimed at disrupting construction. A jury ruled in favour of Energy Transfer in March 2026, leading to the substantial damages award.
Ongoing Legal Battles
The legal confrontations between Greenpeace and Energy Transfer are far from over. In February, Greenpeace initiated a countersuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, leveraging European legislation designed to protect activists from harassment through frivolous lawsuits. This litigation continues to unfold, reflecting the complex legal landscape surrounding environmental advocacy and corporate interests.
Why it Matters
The ruling against Greenpeace underscores a critical juncture in the relationship between environmental activism and corporate power. As the legal landscape evolves, the implications of such cases extend beyond financial penalties; they raise fundamental questions about the rights of activists to challenge corporate practices under the banner of environmental protection. The outcome could set precedents that either fortify or undermine the ability of organisations to advocate for sustainable practices in the face of corporate opposition, shaping the discourse around environmental justice for years to come.
