**
A North Dakota judge has confirmed a substantial $345 million ruling against Greenpeace, stemming from the environmental organisation’s involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. This decision, announced on February 27, 2026, significantly reduces the original jury award of $667 million that was issued in March 2023, reflecting a contentious legal battle between Greenpeace and the pipeline operator, Energy Transfer.
Legal Proceedings and Outcomes
Judge James Gion of the North Dakota District Court issued the final judgement, adhering closely to his prior ruling from October 2025, which cut the jury’s damages award nearly in half. The lawsuit originated from Energy Transfer’s claims that Greenpeace engaged in unlawful activities during the protests aimed at halting the pipeline’s construction.
In a statement, Greenpeace expressed its intention to pursue a new trial and, if necessary, to appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Marco Simons, interim general counsel for Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund, characterised the lawsuit as an overt effort to suppress free expression. “Speaking out against corporations that cause environmental harm should never be deemed unlawful,” he asserted, indicating the group’s commitment to defending its stance against corporate interests.
Energy Transfer’s Response
Following the ruling, Energy Transfer released a statement describing the judgement as a pivotal advancement in their efforts to hold Greenpeace accountable for what they term “unlawful and damaging actions.” The company expressed its intention to assess potential next steps to ensure full accountability for Greenpeace’s actions during the construction of the pipeline.
The Dakota Access Pipeline, which began construction in 2016 and was completed the following year, has been a focal point of environmental activism. It currently transports approximately 40% of the oil extracted from North Dakota’s Bakken region, despite ongoing concerns raised by environmental and tribal advocacy groups regarding its potential impact on local water supplies and the broader climate crisis.
The Broader Context of Environmental Activism
This legal conflict highlights the ongoing tensions between environmental advocacy and corporate interests, particularly in the context of fossil fuel infrastructure. The Dakota Access Pipeline has faced significant opposition from various groups, notably the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and numerous environmentalists who argue that the project poses severe risks to both ecological and community health.
Energy Transfer’s lawsuit against Greenpeace, initiated in 2017, accuses the organisation of disseminating misinformation about the pipeline and allegedly compensating protesters to disrupt its construction. In response, Greenpeace has initiated its own legal action in the Netherlands, invoking European legislation designed to protect activists from strategic lawsuits aimed at silencing dissent.
Why it Matters
The outcome of this legal battle underscores the precarious balance between environmental activism and corporate power. As the world grapples with escalating climate challenges, the implications of this ruling extend beyond the courtroom. It raises critical questions about the rights of activists to voice their concerns and challenge corporate practices that threaten the environment. This case could set a precedent that affects how environmental protests are conducted and how activists are treated legally, ultimately influencing the future landscape of environmental advocacy and corporate accountability.
