**
In a landmark ruling, a North Dakota judge has confirmed a $345 million judgment against Greenpeace, stemming from the environmental organisation’s involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The decision, delivered by Judge James Gion, revises an earlier jury award of $667 million, significantly reducing the financial liability faced by the environmental group.
Background of the Case
The Dakota Access Pipeline, which commenced construction in 2016 and became operational in 2017, has been a focal point of environmental and indigenous activism. The pipeline, which transports approximately 40% of the crude oil produced in North Dakota’s Bakken region, faced staunch opposition due to concerns over potential threats to water supplies and its contribution to climate change. Various advocacy groups, including those representing Native American tribes, argued that the pipeline’s construction posed serious environmental risks.
In 2017, Energy Transfer, the Texas-based company behind the project, initiated legal action against Greenpeace in a North Dakota federal court. The company accused Greenpeace of spreading false information about the pipeline and of financially supporting protesters who disrupted construction efforts.
The Court’s Decision
The ruling delivered on February 27, 2026, aligns with an earlier decision made by Judge Gion in October 2025, where he reduced the jury’s original damages award by nearly half. The verdict encompasses claims of defamation, trespassing, and conspiracy, affirming that Greenpeace’s actions during the protests constituted unlawful interference with Energy Transfer’s operations.
In response, Greenpeace has expressed its intention to pursue a new trial and appeals to the North Dakota Supreme Court, asserting that the lawsuit represents an egregious attempt to suppress free speech. Marco Simons, interim general counsel for Greenpeace USA, emphasised, “Speaking out against corporations that cause environmental harm should never be deemed unlawful.”
Energy Transfer’s Reaction
Energy Transfer welcomed the ruling as a significant stride towards holding Greenpeace accountable for what it describes as damaging and unlawful conduct. The company indicated it is reviewing potential actions to ensure full accountability from the environmental organisation. The case has sparked considerable debate about the intersection of environmental activism and corporate interests, raising questions about the limits of lawful protest.
Greenpeace’s Counteractions
In an intriguing development, Greenpeace has also initiated a countersuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, leveraging European legislation designed to combat lawsuits aimed at silencing activists. This ongoing litigation underscores the broader implications of the North Dakota case and highlights the international dimensions of environmental advocacy.
Why it Matters
This ruling not only sets a precedent for how environmental groups may operate in the face of corporate opposition but also raises critical questions about the balance between free speech and corporate rights. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences for activism, potentially chilling the voices of those who oppose corporate projects deemed harmful to the environment. As the global conversation around climate action intensifies, the legal landscape surrounding activism is likely to evolve, influencing both local and international environmental movements.
