**
In a significant legal development, a North Dakota judge has confirmed a $345 million ruling against Greenpeace, linked to the environmental group’s involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). This decision follows a previous jury award of $667 million, which was dramatically reduced by Judge James Gion in October. Greenpeace has expressed its intention to challenge the ruling, framing the lawsuit as an infringement on free speech rights.
Final Ruling Reduces Damages
On 27 February 2026, Judge Gion finalised the substantial judgment against Greenpeace, stemming from a lawsuit filed by pipeline operator Energy Transfer. The judge’s latest decision aligns with his earlier ruling to decrease the damages awarded to Energy Transfer, a Texas-based company that claims Greenpeace engaged in unlawful actions during the construction of the DAPL.
In a statement reacting to the ruling, Marco Simons, interim general counsel at Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund, condemned the lawsuit as a “blatant attempt to silence free speech.” He emphasised the importance of advocating against corporate practices that jeopardise environmental integrity.
Energy Transfer’s Position
Energy Transfer, which has been embroiled in legal battles since the project’s inception, welcomed the court’s decision as a crucial step towards accountability. The company stated, “This ruling reinforces the need to hold Greenpeace accountable for its unlawful and damaging actions against us during the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.” The firm has indicated it is evaluating further legal strategies to ensure comprehensive accountability from Greenpeace.
The DAPL, completed in 2017, has been a focal point of environmental and tribal protests since its inception. Activists assert that the pipeline threatens local water supplies and contributes to the broader climate crisis. Approximately 40% of North Dakota’s oil production flows through this controversial pipeline.
Background of the Case
The legal saga began in 2017 when Energy Transfer filed its initial lawsuit in federal court, accusing Greenpeace of disseminating misinformation about the pipeline and financing disruptive protests. A North Dakota jury found in favour of Energy Transfer in March 2026, awarding hefty damages for claims including defamation, trespassing, and conspiracy.
In a counter-move, Greenpeace has initiated legal proceedings against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, utilising a European law designed to protect activists from harassment lawsuits. This case is ongoing and adds another layer of complexity to the already intricate legal landscape surrounding the DAPL.
Implications for Environmental Activism
The outcome of this case carries profound implications for environmental activism in the United States and beyond. The ruling not only highlights the tensions between corporate interests and environmental advocacy but also raises critical questions about the boundaries of free speech and the rights of protestors.
As legal battles continue and Greenpeace prepares its appeal, the situation remains fluid. The implications of this ruling could set a precedent that influences how future protests are conducted and the legal protections available to activists.
Why it Matters
This case underscores a pivotal moment in the relationship between large corporations and grassroots environmental movements. As corporations increasingly turn to the courts to manage dissent, the ramifications extend beyond the immediate financial penalties. They challenge the very essence of advocacy and protest in a democratic society. The outcome will likely resonate through future environmental campaigns, influencing not only how organisations operate but also how citizens engage in activism against corporate practices perceived as harmful to the planet.
