Environmental extremism just got a massive $660 million slap in the face as a North Dakota jury found Greenpeace defamed Energy Transfer during the Dakota Access pipeline protests, potentially signaling a turning point in how activist organizations can be held accountable for their tactics.
Key Takeaways
- A North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace to pay over $660 million to Energy Transfer for defamation, trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy related to the Dakota Access pipeline protests.
- Energy Transfer claimed Greenpeace orchestrated and funded protests while spreading false information about environmental dangers.
- Greenpeace plans to appeal, arguing the lawsuit is designed to silence legitimate protest and threatens First Amendment rights.
- The verdict faces criticism over potential jury bias, with many jurors reportedly having ties to the fossil fuel industry.
- Legal experts classify this as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) case intended to chill environmental activism.
Dakota Pipeline Legal Battle Results in Historic Penalty
In a landmark decision that sent shockwaves through environmental activist circles, a North Dakota jury found Greenpeace liable for defaming Energy Transfer and ordered the environmental organization to pay $660 million in damages. The verdict, delivered after a three-week trial, found Greenpeace guilty on all counts, including defamation, trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy related to their involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. This represents one of the largest judgments ever against an environmental organization and could have far-reaching implications for how activism is conducted in the United States.
Energy Transfer, the Dallas-based pipeline company that brought the lawsuit, accused Greenpeace of orchestrating protests and spreading misinformation about the pipeline’s environmental impact and proximity to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The company alleged significant financial harm resulted from Greenpeace’s activities, which they claimed went beyond legitimate protest into the realm of defamation. The company maintained that Greenpeace fabricated environmental dangers to create a narrative that would generate publicity and donations.
JUST IN: Greenpeace Ordered to Pay Over $660 Million for Dakota Access Pipeline Protest Damages
In a landmark decision, a North Dakota jury found Greenpeace liable for damages stemming from protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, awarding Energy Transfer more than $660… pic.twitter.com/3yMipmaC8z
— MAGA Resource (@MAGAResource) March 20, 2025
Greenpeace’s Defense and Appeal Strategy
Greenpeace has vehemently denied the allegations and announced plans to appeal the verdict immediately. The organization’s representatives argue that the lawsuit represents a dangerous attack on First Amendment protections and is designed primarily to silence legitimate environmental protest. They maintain that their role in the pipeline protests was lawful and constitutionally protected. The environmental group also raised concerns about the fairness of the trial, pointing to potential bias among jurors who had ties to the fossil fuel industry.
“This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations. It’s part of a renewed push by corporations to weaponise our courts to silence dissent. We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech,” said Sushma Raman, interim executive director at Greenpeace USA.
The organization further argued that Energy Transfer’s legal strategy was not about seeking compensation but rather about bankrupting and silencing a prominent environmental voice. Greenpeace’s interim executive director Sushma Raman directly addressed this point, stating, “This is the end of a chapter, but not the end of our fight. Energy Transfer knows we don’t have $660 million. They want our silence, not our money.” Legal experts have classified the case as a SLAPP lawsuit – a strategic legal action intended to chill free speech through expensive litigation.
"On Wednesday, a nine-person jury at the Morton County courthouse in south-central North Dakota awarded more than $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access, according to calculations from Greenpeace. The company accused Greenpeace USA, parent…
— cdrsalamander (@cdrsalamander) March 20, 2025
Energy Transfer Declares Victory for Law and Order
Energy Transfer expressed satisfaction with the jury’s decision, framing it as a victory not only for their company but for communities affected by the protests and law-abiding citizens everywhere. The company has consistently maintained a distinction between lawful free speech and what they characterized as unlawful actions orchestrated by Greenpeace. The pipeline company highlighted the disruption caused to local communities during the months-long protests that attracted thousands of demonstrators to North Dakota in 2016 and 2017.
“While we are pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace. It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law.” – stated Energy Transfer.
The Dakota Access Pipeline has been operational since late 2017 despite the protests. It runs 1,172 miles through four states, transporting oil from North Dakota to Illinois. The pipeline was completed despite widespread opposition from Native American tribes, particularly the Standing Rock Sioux, who feared potential water contamination and violation of treaty rights. The protests at Standing Rock became a flashpoint for indigenous rights and environmental activism, drawing support from veterans, celebrities, and thousands of other protesters from across the country.
Broader Implications for Environmental Activism
Legal experts and civil liberties advocates have expressed concern that the massive judgment could have a chilling effect on environmental activism nationwide. Critics point out that North Dakota is one of only 15 states without anti-SLAPP laws designed to protect citizens from lawsuits intended to silence critics. The case has drawn attention from nonprofit organizations and First Amendment experts who worry about the precedent it may set for holding organizations financially liable for the actions of individuals at protests they support or endorse.
“Beyond the impact that this lawsuit could have on the Greenpeace entities, one of the most worrisome things about the case is that it could establish dangerous new legal precedents that could hold any participant at protests responsible for the actions of others at those protests,” said Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace’s legal counsel.
This verdict comes as part of a broader pattern of litigation against environmental groups by energy companies. Energy Transfer initially filed a federal RICO lawsuit against Greenpeace and other organizations, which was dismissed before being refiled in North Dakota state court. The company’s aggressive legal strategy aligns with similar cases brought by other energy companies against environmental activists in recent years, signaling a more confrontational approach to dealing with opposition to fossil fuel development projects.
