Environmental advocacy organization Greenpeace faces financial devastation after a North Dakota jury ordered it to pay oil company Energy Transfer $660 million over protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Quick Takes
- A North Dakota jury ruled that Greenpeace must pay over $660 million to Energy Transfer for defamation and other claims related to Dakota Access pipeline protests
- Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of orchestrating protests through a misinformation campaign that damaged their business reputation
- Greenpeace denies the accusations and plans to appeal, arguing the case threatens First Amendment rights to peaceful protest
- Critics of the verdict point to potential jury bias, with many jurors allegedly having ties to the fossil fuel industry
- Legal experts have characterized the lawsuit as a “SLAPP” (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) designed to silence opposition
Pipeline Protests Lead to Massive Verdict
A North Dakota jury delivered a staggering financial blow to environmental group Greenpeace, ordering the organization to pay Energy Transfer $660 million in damages related to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Dallas-based oil and gas company claimed Greenpeace had engaged in defamation, trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy during the demonstrations that took place near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in 2016-2017. The verdict, which could potentially bankrupt the environmental advocacy group, has immediately drawn concern from First Amendment advocates and nonprofit organizations nationwide.
Energy Transfer alleged that Greenpeace orchestrated, funded and spread misinformation during the protests, which attracted thousands of demonstrators including veterans and celebrities. The company claimed these actions significantly damaged their business operations and reputation. The Dakota Access Pipeline, which crosses four states and has been operational since late 2017, became a focal point for environmental activism and indigenous rights advocates who opposed its construction near tribal lands and water sources.
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
Corporate Victory or Free Speech Threat?
Energy Transfer expressed satisfaction with the verdict, framing it as a victory for law-abiding citizens. In a statement following the ruling, the company said: “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.”
“What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer’s blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. And while they also tried to distort the truth about Greenpeace’s role in the protests, we instead reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to non-violence in every action we take,” said Deepa Padmanabha.
Greenpeace has vehemently denied the accusations and announced plans to appeal the verdict. The environmental organization claims the lawsuit represents an attempt to suppress legitimate protest activity and threaten free speech rights. The case had originally been filed as a federal RICO lawsuit but was dismissed before Energy Transfer refiled it in North Dakota state court, which notably lacks anti-SLAPP protections available in 35 other states that help protect citizens from lawsuits intended to silence critics.
Questions of Fairness and Jury Selection
Critics of the verdict have raised serious concerns about the fairness of the trial. According to observers, many of the jurors had connections to the fossil fuel industry or expressed negative opinions about the pipeline protests during jury selection. EarthRights International, an organization monitoring the trial, highlighted these concerns in a statement following the verdict, noting that the judge denied Greenpeace’s requests to change the venue despite these potential biases.
“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, Greenpeace’s interim executive director.
Raman made it clear that the organization views the lawsuit as an attack on their existence rather than a legitimate legal claim. “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,” she stated. The case’s outcome has prompted debate about the broader implications for activism and corporate accountability, with legal experts suggesting Greenpeace may have strong grounds for appeal.
International Implications and Ongoing Legal Battle
The legal battle extends beyond American borders, with Greenpeace International planning to continue fighting Energy Transfer through an anti-SLAPP lawsuit filed in the Netherlands. Kristin Casper from Greenpeace International emphasized the organization’s determination, stating: “Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight. We’re just getting started with our anti-Slapp lawsuit against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest. We will see Energy Transfer in court this July in the Netherlands. We will not back down, we will not be silenced.”
First Amendment lawyer Marty Garbus believes Greenpeace has strong prospects on appeal, suggesting they may ultimately prevail both legally and in the court of public opinion. Meanwhile, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which led the original protests, has criticized the lawsuit as an attempt to silence their legitimate opposition to a pipeline they view as threatening their water supply and sacred lands. The tribe previously rejected financial incentives from Energy Transfer founder Kelcy Warren to halt the protests.
The case represents one of the largest defamation verdicts in U.S. history and will likely remain under scrutiny as it proceeds through the appeals process. For conservatives concerned about property rights and the rule of law, the verdict represents accountability for destructive protest tactics, while those focused on First Amendment protections see a troubling precedent that could stifle legitimate dissent and peaceful protest activities.
