A North Dakota court on Friday issued a final judgment ordering Greenpeace to pay $345 million to Energy Transfer, concluding a long-running case tied to opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. The judgment was signed by Judge James Gion and mirrors a ruling he issued in October that substantially reduced a larger jury award handed down earlier this year.
In March, a jury awarded Energy Transfer roughly $667 million in damages following a trial in which the pipeline company accused Greenpeace of a range of unlawful tactics during the construction of the Dakota Access project. In October, Judge Gion cut that award by almost half, and his most recent order finalized the lower $345 million judgment.
Greenpeace responded to the ruling by stating it intends to pursue a new trial and, if necessary, to appeal the decision to the North Dakota Supreme Court. The organization characterized the lawsuit as "a blatant attempt to silence free speech," and Marco Simons, interim general counsel at Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund, said in a statement: "Speaking out against corporations that cause environmental harm should never be deemed unlawful."
Energy Transfer issued its own statement calling the judgment "an important step in this legal process of holding Greenpeace accountable for its unlawful and damaging actions against us during the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline." The company added it was "analyzing possible next steps that we may choose to take to make sure they are held fully accountable."
The Dakota Access Pipeline project, built near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, began construction in 2016 and was completed in 2017. The pipeline now carries roughly 40% of the oil produced in North Dakota's Bakken region. Its construction prompted vigorous opposition from environmental and tribal advocacy groups, who argued the pipeline posed risks to local water supplies and would worsen climate change.
Energy Transfer originally filed suit against Greenpeace in 2017 in federal court in North Dakota, alleging the group spread falsehoods about the pipeline and that it paid protesters to disrupt construction activities. The March jury verdict included damages awarded on claims of defamation, trespassing and conspiracy.
In a parallel action, Greenpeace filed a countersuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands in February, invoking a European statute intended to limit lawsuits that aim to intimidate or silence activists. That litigation remains active.
With the North Dakota judgment finalized, both parties have indicated they will continue to pursue legal remedies - Greenpeace through requests for a new trial and potential appeal, and Energy Transfer by considering additional measures to enforce accountability. The case highlights ongoing legal and public-policy tensions surrounding large energy infrastructure projects and activist opposition.