**
A North Dakota judge has confirmed a substantial $345 million judgment against the environmental organisation Greenpeace, stemming from its involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. This ruling follows a significant reduction from an initial jury award of $667 million, reflecting the ongoing tensions between environmental advocacy and corporate interests in the region.
Court Decision Finalised
Judge James Gion issued the final judgement on 27 February 2026, aligning with a previous decision made in October 2025. The initial jury award had been delivered in March 2025, where the jury found Greenpeace liable for defamation, trespassing, and conspiracy during the protests that erupted around the Dakota Access Pipeline project.
In response to the ruling, Greenpeace has expressed its intent to pursue a new trial and is prepared to appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Marco Simons, interim general counsel for Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund, condemned the lawsuit as a “blatant attempt to silence free speech,” emphasising the importance of voicing opposition against corporations implicated in environmental degradation.
Energy Transfer Responds
Energy Transfer, the pipeline operator, characterised the court’s decision as a crucial advancement in holding Greenpeace accountable for its alleged unlawful actions during the construction phase of the pipeline. The company stated it is currently evaluating its options for further legal recourse to ensure full accountability for Greenpeace’s conduct.
The Dakota Access Pipeline, which commenced construction in 2016 and was completed in 2017, has been a focal point for environmental and Indigenous rights activists. The pipeline is reported to transport approximately 40% of the oil extracted from North Dakota’s Bakken region. Opponents of the project have long voiced concerns over its potential to contaminate local water supplies and exacerbate the climate crisis.
Background of the Protests
The protests surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline were marked by extensive participation from environmentalists and tribal advocacy groups, particularly near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. These groups argued that the pipeline would pose significant risks to the environment and undermine local Indigenous rights.
Energy Transfer’s lawsuit against Greenpeace, initiated in federal court in North Dakota in 2017, accused the organisation of disseminating misinformation about the project and financially supporting protests that disrupted construction activities. In contrast, Greenpeace launched a countersuit in the Netherlands in February 2026, invoking European legislation designed to protect activists from retaliatory lawsuits aimed at stifling their efforts.
Ongoing Legal Battles
This case exemplifies the growing friction between corporate interests and environmental activism in the United States. As the legal battles continue, both sides remain resolute in their positions, with Greenpeace vowing to defend its right to protest and Energy Transfer seeking to uphold what it regards as accountability for damaging actions.
The ongoing litigation highlights not only the contentious nature of environmental activism but also raises critical questions about the limits of corporate power and the rights of individuals and organisations to challenge potentially harmful projects.
Why it Matters
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for environmental activism and corporate accountability in the United States and beyond. As legal precedents are set, the ability of activists to voice dissent and engage in protests without fear of severe financial repercussions will be tested. This situation serves as a crucial reminder of the delicate balance between protecting corporate interests and upholding fundamental rights to free speech and environmental advocacy in an era increasingly defined by climate challenges.
