In a significant ruling on March 19, 2025, a jury in Morton County, North Dakota, ordered environmental group Greenpeace to pay nearly $667 million in damages stemming from its involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The nine-person jury found that Greenpeace had incited illegal behavior among anti-pipeline protesters and defamed the company behind the project, Energy Transfer, in a decision that marks a severe blow to the organization's financial stability and operational capacity.
The lawsuit, filed by Energy Transfer in 2019, accused Greenpeace, along with its subsidiaries Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund Inc., of defamation, trespassing, nuisance, and civil conspiracy. Over the course of the three-week trial, which included witness testimonies from current and former Greenpeace employees and Indigenous activists, the jury concluded that Greenpeace USA was liable for all counts, while the other two entities were liable for some charges.
The total judgment comprised nearly $404 million to be paid by Greenpeace USA, and approximately $131 million each from Greenpeace Fund Inc. and Greenpeace International.
Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace’s Senior Legal Advisor, expressed dismay at the outcome, indicating that the large financial award could threaten the organization’s existence: "The work of Greenpeace is never gonna stop. We have not had a chance to even circle up as a group yet, but the fight is not over," she stated. Greenpeace plans to appeal the decision, signaling that they will continue to contest the allegations in court.
Kristin Casper, General Counsel for Greenpeace International, emphasized that, "The fight against Big Oil is not over today. We know that the law and the truth are on our side.” She mentioned that the organization is preparing to face Energy Transfer in a separate anti-intimidation lawsuit set for July in Amsterdam.
Energy Transfer hailed the court's decision as a victory for lawful protest practices, asserting that the case was not about free speech, but rather about accountability. Trey Cox, the attorney representing Energy Transfer, remarked after the verdict, "Today, the jury delivered a resounding verdict, declaring Greenpeace’s actions wrong, unlawful, and unacceptable by societal standards. It is a day of reckoning and accountability for Greenpeace." He further described the protest activities as "violent and destructive," which should not be protected under the guise of free speech.
The origins of this case trace back to the protests that erupted in 2016 and continued into 2017 against the Dakota Access Pipeline, primarily led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The protesters argued that the pipeline posed a significant risk to their water supply and sacred grounds. The multi-state pipeline, which began transporting oil in mid-2017, is crucial, delivering about 5% of the United States' daily oil production.
The jury’s verdict has drawn criticism from various free speech and environmental advocates. Many argued that the lawsuit represented a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), aimed at silencing dissent and punishing activists involved in environmental advocacy. A group of lawyers monitoring the case stated, "It is our collective assessment that the jury verdict against Greenpeace reflects a deeply flawed trial with multiple due process violations."
Members of the Indigenous community who attended the trial also expressed disappointment. Waniya Locke, a citizen of the Standing Rock Sioux, stated, "Standing Rock was not heard," highlighting the perceived disconnect between the verdict and the significance of Indigenous-led movements. Kandi White, an activist, described the decision as shameful, stating that it undermined the efforts of the Native peoples at the center of the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
The backlash against the verdict extends to the legislative space as well. U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer from North Dakota praised the ruling, stating, "Today, justice has been done with Greenpeace and its radical environmentalist buddies who encouraged this destructive behavior. They can think twice now about doing it again."
Meanwhile, Greenpeace isn’t resting on its laurels. In a move believed to be the first lawsuit under a new European Union directive intended to protect organizations from free speech attacks, Greenpeace International has initiated a claim in a Dutch court against Energy Transfer, seeking to recover damages and challenge the legality of the lawsuit in Morton County.
This verdict may have far-reaching implications not only for Greenpeace but also for the broader movement of environmental activism. The outcome raises alarms about the future of peaceful protests and the rights of organizations advocating for environmental protection.
While this legal battle reaches a critical turning point, one thing is clear: the fight over the Dakota Access Pipeline and its impact on the environment, Indigenous rights, and corporate accountability is far from over.
