**
A North Dakota judge has confirmed a substantial $345 million judgment against Greenpeace, stemming from the environmental organisation’s involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). This ruling follows an earlier jury decision which awarded pipeline operator Energy Transfer a much larger sum of $667 million in damages for the alleged unlawful actions taken by Greenpeace during the project’s construction.
Court Ruling Finalised
Judge James Gion’s final ruling, delivered on 27 February 2026, aligns with his previous decision from October, which significantly reduced the original jury-awarded damages. The case has been closely watched by both environmental advocates and the energy sector, highlighting the ongoing tensions between corporate interests and environmental activism.
In its response, Greenpeace has vowed to seek a new trial and, if needed, to appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court. The organisation characterises the lawsuit as a blatant effort to undermine free speech.
“Speaking out against corporations that cause environmental harm should never be deemed unlawful,” stated Marco Simons, interim general counsel at Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund. This sentiment underscores the group’s commitment to its mission, even in the face of significant legal challenges.
Background on the Dakota Access Pipeline
The Dakota Access Pipeline, which runs near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, has been a focal point of environmental and tribal advocacy since its inception. Construction began in 2016 and was completed in 2017, with the pipeline currently responsible for transporting approximately 40% of the oil extracted from North Dakota’s Bakken region.
Opposition to the project arose from concerns over potential water contamination and its contribution to the climate crisis. Protests were widespread, with activists arguing that the pipeline’s construction posed a direct threat to local ecosystems and Indigenous rights.
Legal Battle and Counteractions
Energy Transfer initially filed suit against Greenpeace in federal court back in 2017, alleging that the organisation disseminated false information about the pipeline and financially supported protests that interrupted construction efforts. In March, the jury found Greenpeace liable for defamation, trespassing, and conspiracy, leading to the significant damages verdict.
In a counter-move, Greenpeace filed a lawsuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands in February 2026, invoking European legislation designed to protect activists from harassment through litigation. This ongoing case illustrates the complex interplay of legal strategies employed by both sides in this high-stakes dispute.
Why it Matters
The ruling against Greenpeace is not merely a legal victory for Energy Transfer; it signals a broader confrontation between environmental activism and corporate power. As environmental concerns continue to rise globally, the case raises critical questions about the limits of free speech and the extent to which corporations can hold activists accountable. The outcome of this legal battle may set significant precedents for future environmental protests and the rights of organisations to advocate against corporate practices perceived as harmful. In a world increasingly driven by climate considerations, the implications of this ruling will resonate far beyond the courtroom, influencing the landscape of environmental activism for years to come.
