**
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, delivered by Judge James Gion on 27 February 2026, significantly revises an earlier jury award of $667 million, which was deemed excessive. Greenpeace has announced intentions to pursue further legal avenues, asserting the lawsuit undermines free speech.
Background of the Case
The Dakota Access Pipeline, operational since 2017, transports approximately 40% of the oil extracted from North Dakota’s Bakken region. Its construction faced intense opposition from environmentalists and Indigenous groups, particularly those aligned with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Protesters contended that the pipeline posed risks to the local water supply and furthered the climate crisis.
In 2017, Energy Transfer, the company behind the pipeline, initiated a lawsuit against Greenpeace in federal court, alleging that the organisation disseminated misinformation and financially incentivised demonstrators to disrupt construction activities. Following a jury verdict in March 2026 that upheld claims of defamation, trespassing, and conspiracy, the financial penalty was considerably reduced by Judge Gion in his recent ruling.
Greenpeace’s Response
In response to the verdict, Greenpeace has expressed its determination to contest the ruling. Marco Simons, interim general counsel at Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund, described the lawsuit as “a blatant attempt to silence free speech.” The organisation asserts that advocating against corporate actions detrimental to the environment should not be criminalised.
Greenpeace plans to seek a new trial and, if necessary, will escalate the matter to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Their stance highlights a broader concern about the implications of such legal actions on environmental activism and public discourse.
Energy Transfer’s Position
Energy Transfer has welcomed the court’s ruling as a pivotal moment in their legal struggle against Greenpeace. The company asserts that the judgment is a necessary step towards ensuring accountability for what it describes as Greenpeace’s “unlawful and damaging actions” during the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Energy Transfer has indicated that it will evaluate its options for further legal action to ensure comprehensive accountability from Greenpeace.
Ongoing Legal Battles
The legal tussle is not one-sided; Greenpeace countersued Energy Transfer in the Netherlands earlier this year, invoking a European law designed to protect activists from retaliatory lawsuits aimed at silencing them. This ongoing litigation underscores the complex and contentious relationship between environmental activism and corporate interests.
Why it Matters
The outcome of this case is significant not only for the parties involved but also for the future of environmental advocacy. As corporations increasingly resort to legal avenues to combat dissent, the implications for activists and their ability to speak out against environmental degradation are profound. This ruling may set a precedent that could deter future protests and challenge the fundamental rights of organisations advocating for ecological protection, raising urgent questions about the balance between corporate accountability and free speech.
