A North Dakota jury has ordered radical environmental group Greenpeace to pay a staggering $660 million for defaming Energy Transfer during Dakota Access Pipeline protests, a verdict that could bankrupt the activist organization and set a precedent for holding extremist groups accountable for their actions.
At a Glance
- Energy Transfer won a $660 million defamation case against Greenpeace related to the 2016-17 Dakota Access pipeline protests
- The jury found Greenpeace liable for defamation, trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy
- Greenpeace plans to appeal, claiming the lawsuit threatens free speech and peaceful protest rights
- Legal experts label the case a potential watershed moment for holding activist groups financially accountable
Energy Transfer’s Legal Victory
In a decisive blow to environmental activism, Energy Transfer secured a massive legal victory against Greenpeace after a North Dakota jury awarded the Dallas-based oil and gas company over $660 million in damages. The case centered around Greenpeace’s role in the high-profile protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline during 2016-2017. The jury determined that Greenpeace was liable for defamation, trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy, finding that the organization had coordinated and funded protest activities while spreading false environmental information.
Energy Transfer celebrated the verdict as a victory not just for their company but for law-abiding citizens across America. In a statement following the decision, Energy Transfer highlighted the broader implications of the ruling: “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.”
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
The Pipeline Protest Fallout
The Dakota Access Pipeline, which crosses four states and has been operational since late 2017, became a flashpoint for environmental activism. The protests attracted thousands of participants, including veterans and celebrities, and resulted in significant clashes with law enforcement. Over 140 people were arrested during the demonstrations, which included incidents of violence where authorities deployed tear gas and water cannons to control crowds. Energy Transfer’s lawsuit specifically accused Greenpeace of orchestrating these protests through a coordinated misinformation campaign.
“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, a Greenpeace representative.
The massive financial penalty has been divided among Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace Fund Inc., and Greenpeace International, with the total damages amounting to nearly $666.9 million. This figure represents one of the largest defamation awards in recent history and could potentially cripple the organization’s operations in the United States.
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 Response and Appeal Plans
Greenpeace has vehemently denied all claims and announced immediate plans to appeal the verdict. The organization characterized the lawsuit as a direct attack on the First Amendment and peaceful protest rights. Sushma Raman, Greenpeace’s interim executive director, didn’t mince words about the organization’s perspective on the case, 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.”
“We should all be concerned about the future of the first amendment, and lawsuits like these aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech. Greenpeace will continue to do its part to fight for the protection of these fundamental rights for everyone.” – said Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace’s senior legal adviser.
Legal experts supporting Greenpeace have labeled the case as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), suggesting it was intended to silence critics through costly litigation rather than address legitimate legal claims. The organization has also raised concerns about the fairness of the trial itself, citing potential jury bias with many jurors having ties to the fossil fuel industry and holding negative views of anti-pipeline protests. EarthRights International, which supports Greenpeace’s appeal, highlighted these concerns in a statement.
Broader Implications for Environmental Activism
The case has drawn significant attention from non-profit organizations and First Amendment experts due to its potential implications for activism and free speech. North Dakota does not have anti-SLAPP laws, unlike 35 other states, making it a more favorable venue for such lawsuits. The trial followed an earlier attempt by Energy Transfer to sue under federal RICO statutes, which was dismissed before being refiled in North Dakota state court. This legal strategy demonstrates the company’s determination to hold Greenpeace accountable.
“These irregularities, which may amount to a violation of Greenpeace’s right to a fair trial, almost certainly factored into the verdict, and may form the basis of an appeal,” stated EarthRights International, referring to concerns about jury selection and other trial procedures.
Greenpeace International has made it clear they plan to continue their legal battle against Energy Transfer, including an anti-SLAPP lawsuit scheduled for July in the Netherlands. Kristin Casper of Greenpeace International issued a defiant statement: “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.”
The verdict stands as a potential watershed moment for corporations seeking to hold activist groups financially accountable for their actions, possibly creating a new legal framework for addressing protest tactics that cross the line from protected speech into unlawful behavior.
