Greenpeace’s legal fight in North Dakota hit a new milestone this week after a judge ruled the environmental group must pay Energy Transfer an expected $345 million in a case that grew out of protests tied to the Dakota Access oil pipeline nearly a decade ago. The order came from Judge James Gion, who previously reduced a jury award in the same litigation and who said the revised amount would become enforceable once it is formally entered. Greenpeace says it has legal arguments to dismiss the claims, and both sides are expected to pursue appeals to the North Dakota Supreme Court once the paperwork is completed.
The case centers on litigation over the pipeline’s construction and the protests that followed, which included demonstrators rallying in support of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The tribe has said the Dakota Access Pipeline threatened its water supply because its reservation is downstream of the pipeline’s Missouri River crossing. During the period when construction faced opposition, thousands of supporters camped in the area and there were hundreds of arrests in 2016 and 2017, according to the reporting on the dispute.
Greenpeace’s role in the protests is at the heart of the legal claims. An attorney for Energy Transfer, Trey Cox, argued that Greenpeace exploited a small, disorganized, local issue to advance its agenda. Cox called the group “master manipulators” and “deceptive to the core,” and he said Greenpeace paid professional protesters, organized protester trainings, shared intelligence about the pipeline route, and sent lockboxes so demonstrators could attach themselves to equipment.
Greenpeace and its related entities disputed those allegations, saying there was no evidence to support them and that their involvement was limited or nonexistent. The groups said the lawsuit amounted to “lawfare” aimed at silencing activists and critics. Still, the jury found Greenpeace USA liable on all counts, including defamation, conspiracy, trespass, nuisance and tortious interference, while the other two Greenpeace entities were found liable for some of the claims, according to the Associated Press account.
Judge Gion’s ruling reduced the size of the jury award, cutting it nearly in half. The jury had awarded more than $660 million, and Gion’s order brought the expected payment down to $345 million. Energy Transfer, a large pipeline operator that the story describes as a $64 billion, Dallas-based energy conglomerate with pipelines in 44 states, objected to the reduction.
In response to the latest order, Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International General Counsel, said Greenpeace plans to fight the decision through further litigation. “We will be requesting a new trial and, failing that, will appeal the judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, where Greenpeace International and the US Greenpeace entities have solid arguments for the dismissal of all legal claims against us,” Casper said Thursday. Greenpeace has also said it would be unable to pay damages on the scale ordered.
The stakes for Greenpeace have broader implications for how environmental groups and major energy projects collide in court. Greenpeace says it will continue its work, describing itself as a global network of independent campaigning organizations that uses peaceful protest and creative confrontation to expose environmental problems and promote solutions. The Associated Press report notes the group’s longer history of high-profile demonstrations and says that the Dakota Access protests are what brought these legal fights to a head for Greenpeace entities.
Greenpeace, founded in 1971 in Canada by activists seeking to stop nuclear weapons testing in Alaska’s Aleutian archipelago, traces its name to an anecdote involving a meeting and a Quaker-style protest tradition. Over the years, the group has highlighted its campaigns through examples such as activists climbing a chemical plant smokestack in 1981 and occupying an offshore oil platform in 1995. More recently, the report says Greenpeace staged actions including a “Resist” banner near the White House in 2017, days after President Donald Trump took steps to restart construction of the Dakota Access pipeline, and a protest in 2023 involving coverage of the country residence of then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in black fabric to oppose new oil and gas drilling.
In North Dakota, those previous efforts now frame a narrower legal question: whether Greenpeace entities are responsible, under the claims decided by a jury, for actions and alleged conduct tied to protests that sought to halt Dakota Access Pipeline construction. With the order expected to be enforceable only after formal entry and both sides preparing appeals, the North Dakota Supreme Court is likely to be the next forum where the arguments over responsibility and damages will be tested.