In a significant ruling that could reshape the landscape of environmental activism, a North Dakota jury has ordered Greenpeace to pay over $660 million to the oil and gas company Energy Transfer. This verdict, delivered on March 19, 2025, comes after a nine-person jury deliberated for approximately two days regarding the environmental group’s actions during the 2016 to 2017 protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Energy Transfer, the developer of the pipeline, had accused Greenpeace of defamation and disruption related to the protests, which garnered national attention and prompted widespread public dissent. The company claimed that Greenpeace's involvement in these demonstrations resulted in significant financial losses and reputational damage.
In a statement following the jury's decision, Energy Transfer hailed the verdict as a victory for all law-abiding Americans, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between free speech and unlawful protest actions. “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,” Energy Transfer stated, according to The Associated Press.
Greenpeace, for its part, has sharply criticized the outcome. Interim Executive Director Sushma Raman indicated that the ruling poses a dangerous precedent for free speech in America. “This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations,” she asserted. “It's part of a renewed push by corporations to weaponize our courts to silence dissent.” Raman added that the organization plans to appeal the verdict, stating, “Energy Transfer knows we don’t have $660 million. They want our silence, not our money.”
The lawsuit, first filed in North Dakota state court after an earlier federal RICO suit seeking $300 million was dismissed, centers around accusations that Greenpeace’s protests at the Dakota Access Pipeline unnecessarily delayed its completion and inflated its costs. Energy Transfer stated that the protests, facilitated by Greenpeace, caused an estimated increase in construction costs by at least $300 million.
The Dakota Access Pipeline, operational since late 2017, stretches 1,172 miles and crosses multiple states. Its construction faced vehement opposition primarily from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Tribal leaders argued that the pipeline violated treaty rights and posed risks to water supplies and sacred sites, claims that Energy Transfer denied.
In the wake of the verdict, representatives from Greenpeace have rallied public support. Raman called the jury's decision a "clear-cut example of SLAPPs"—a term referring to strategic lawsuits against public participation designed to disadvantage and silence activist groups through lengthy legal battles. Notably, North Dakota lacks anti-SLAPP laws that might otherwise mitigate such lawsuits.
Rebecca Brown, president of the Center for International Environmental Law, criticized the ruling as an assault on free speech and protest rights, stating, “This case is a textbook example of corporate weaponization of the legal system to silence protest and intimidate communities. This misuse of the legal system stifles legitimate dissent and must be seen as a direct threat to environmental justice and democratic freedoms.”
The opposition movement against the Dakota Access Pipeline attracted thousands of supporters, many of whom camped at the site for months. These protesters, alongside representatives of various environmental groups including Greenpeace, sought to amplify the voices of Native American communities, marking one of the most significant environmental protests in recent U.S. history. Some high-profile figures, such as then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, visited the camp to show solidarity.
However, tensions escalated between law enforcement and protesters. Police confronted demonstrators using pepper spray and non-lethal ammunition, resulting in numerous arrests and violence that left a mark on the narrative surrounding the protests.
Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney for the Lakota People’s Law Project and one of the protest organizers, raised questions regarding the validity of holding Greenpeace accountable for the actions of protesters. “I never met a single Greenpeace person,” Iron Eyes stated, emphasizing that Native Americans orchestrated the protest efforts themselves.
Despite the jury’s decision, Greenpeace maintains that its advocacy work and nonviolent protests are rooted in a commitment to advocacy for the environment and indigenous rights. The imminent appeal suggests that the organization will continue to passionately challenge this legal battle, asserting a steadfast commitment to its mission and community.
“Greenpeace USA was founded on nonviolent direct action and peaceful protest over 50 years ago,” noted Raman. “We believe in our legal defense. We believe the law is fully on our side.” Looking ahead, Raman urged supporters to remain vigilant against threats to First Amendment rights, highlighting that “this isn’t over.”
As Greenpeace prepares for its appeal, the ongoing legal struggle spotlights the critical intersection of environmental activism, corporate power, and the limits of legal recourse. The case establishes a poignant moment in U.S. history—a point at which the discourse surrounding environmental protection and corporate accountability can either galvanize or intimidate future protest movements.
In a related vein, more than 350,000 individuals and 430 organizations have spoken out against Energy Transfer’s litigation strategy, rallying behind Greenpeace and its advocacy for a just and sustainable future.
As this high-stakes legal battle unfolds, the implications for free speech and protest rights loom large, not just for Greenpeace, but for all Americans engaged in advocacy for social and environmental causes. The unfolding narrative remains a testament to the enduring struggle for justice in the face of overwhelming opposition.
