**
In a significant legal decision, 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. This ruling, handed down by Judge James Gion on 27 February 2026, represents a substantial reduction from an initial jury award of $667 million, which had been determined in March. The case, pursued by pipeline operator Energy Transfer, underscores the ongoing tensions between environmental activism and corporate interests in the energy sector.
Overview of the Case
The Dakota Access Pipeline, which commenced construction in 2016 and was completed in 2017, has been a focal point of environmental and tribal dissent. The pipeline transports approximately 40% of the crude oil extracted from North Dakota’s Bakken region. Activists, including Indigenous groups, have voiced strong concerns regarding the project, citing potential risks to local water supplies and its contribution to climate change.
Energy Transfer’s legal battle against Greenpeace originated in a federal court in North Dakota in 2017. The company accused the organisation of disseminating misinformation about the pipeline and financially supporting protests that aimed to obstruct its construction. These claims were central to the jury’s 2019 verdict, which included damages for defamation, trespass, and conspiracy.
Greenpeace’s Response
In light of the ruling, Greenpeace has stated its intention to seek a new trial, suggesting that the lawsuit is a deliberate attempt to suppress free speech. Marco Simons, interim general counsel for Greenpeace USA and the Greenpeace Fund, articulated the group’s position, asserting that holding corporations accountable for environmental transgressions should not be criminalised. “Speaking out against corporations that cause environmental harm should never be deemed unlawful,” he stated.
The environmental organisation’s strategy also includes a countersuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands. This case is being pursued under a European law designed to protect activists from strategic lawsuits aimed at silencing them, with proceedings still ongoing.
Energy Transfer’s Position
Energy Transfer has welcomed the court’s decision, describing it as a crucial step in ensuring accountability for Greenpeace’s actions during the controversial pipeline’s construction. The company emphasised its commitment to evaluating further legal options to ensure Greenpeace is held fully accountable for what it terms “unlawful and damaging actions.” The judgement has been framed by Energy Transfer as a necessary measure to protect its interests and the integrity of its operations.
Broader Implications
The outcome of this case raises important questions about the intersection of environmental activism and corporate power. It highlights a growing trend where corporations are increasingly challenging activist organisations in court, potentially stifling dissent and limiting the scope of public protest. The legal landscape surrounding environmental issues continues to evolve, as courts grapple with balancing corporate rights against those of activists advocating for ecological preservation.
Why it Matters
This ruling is emblematic of the broader struggle between environmental advocates and corporate entities. It signals a potential chilling effect on activism, as heavy financial penalties may deter individuals and organisations from speaking out against powerful corporations. The case also brings to light the urgent need for clearer legal protections for environmental activists, particularly in the face of aggressive litigation aimed at silencing dissent. As these tensions unfold, the outcome will not only influence future protests and corporate accountability but may also redefine the boundaries of free speech in the context of environmental advocacy.
