In a major legal decision that could reshape how environmental activism is treated in the courts, a North Dakota jury has ordered Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, a Texas-based oil and gas company. The verdict stems from Greenpeace’s involvement in the 2016–2017 protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, a controversial project that sparked one of the largest anti-fossil fuel movements in United States history.
The jury’s decision follows years of legal battles and could have serious consequences for free speech, protest rights, and the future of environmental activism in America.
At the center of this case is Energy Transfer, the Dallas-based company that built the Dakota Access Pipeline. The pipeline was designed to carry oil over 1,100 miles from North Dakota to Illinois. The project became a lightning rod for protest, especially because it crossed under the Missouri River just upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. The tribe and their allies feared the pipeline could pollute their drinking water and destroy sacred sites.
Greenpeace, along with its fundraising arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. and its global parent Greenpeace International, joined the protests in support of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Although the protest was started by Indigenous leaders, Greenpeace helped by providing resources, media attention, and organizational support. The group’s role in the protest ultimately led Energy Transfer to file a lawsuit accusing Greenpeace of defamation and other harmful actions.
What Greenpeace Said About Energy Transfer
During the protests, Greenpeace made several strong claims about the pipeline project. The organization accused Energy Transfer of damaging sacred burial grounds and culturally significant areas. They also said the Dakota Access Pipeline would “catastrophically alter the climate” by supporting the fossil fuel industry and expanding oil production.
Greenpeace and other environmental groups framed the protests as a stand for Indigenous rights, clean water, and climate justice. The movement drew thousands of supporters, including members from over 200 Native American tribes, celebrities, U.S. military veterans, and political figures. At its peak, over 10,000 people joined the protest camp near the construction site.
Greenpeace stated that its involvement was peaceful and focused on supporting the Indigenous-led movement. They denied organizing the protest or leading any violent actions.
What the Jury Found and Why Greenpeace Lost
After a three-week trial that began in February 2025, a nine-person jury in Mandan, North Dakota found Greenpeace USA guilty on all counts, including defamation, trespass, civil conspiracy, and nuisance. Greenpeace Fund Inc. and Greenpeace International were also found responsible for some of the charges.
The jury awarded nearly $667 million in damages, with Greenpeace USA responsible for the largest share at about $404 million. Greenpeace Fund Inc. and Greenpeace International each owe approximately $131 million.
Energy Transfer’s lead lawyer, Trey Cox, argued that Greenpeace went far beyond peaceful protest. In closing arguments, he said Greenpeace created a “total false narrative” about the pipeline and used the Standing Rock movement to promote its own agenda. He claimed the group trained protesters, funded their efforts, and supplied materials to help block construction.
Cox told the jury, “This case is about lies and unlawful actions that Greenpeace undertook in a campaign to harm Energy Transfer.” He estimated the company suffered between $265 million and $340 million in damages, not including punitive damages.
Greenpeace’s lawyers said there was no direct evidence linking the group to the criminal actions that took place during the protest. They described the lawsuit as a form of legal intimidation and warned that it could discourage people from participating in future protests. Greenpeace USA senior legal advisor Deepa Padmanabha stated, “This lawsuit could establish dangerous new legal precedents that could hold any participant at protests responsible for the actions of others at those protests.”
Energy Transfer’s Reaction
Energy Transfer praised the verdict as a win for both the company and the community of Mandan, North Dakota. In a statement following the decision, the company said, “While we are pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, 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.”
The company also pushed back against claims that it was attacking free speech. “It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law,” the statement said.
Kelcy Warren, co-founder and chairman of Energy Transfer, said in a video deposition that Greenpeace had crossed a line by creating a “false narrative” around the company’s actions. He said, “It was time to fight back.” Warren has also made controversial comments in the past, once saying that environmental activists “should be removed from the gene pool.”
Greenpeace’s Response and Plans to Appeal
Greenpeace has said it will appeal the verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court. The group argues that the trial was unfair and that the jury was biased. According to EarthRights International, an allied environmental legal group, “Most jurors in the case have ties to the oil and gas industry and some openly admitted they could not be impartial, although the judge seated them anyway.”
EarthRights also criticized Energy Transfer’s influence on the local court system, pointing out that the company had donated $3 million to the host city. They believe this may have helped shape the outcome of the trial and violated Greenpeace’s right to a fair hearing.
Kristin Casper, general counsel for Greenpeace International, was firm in her response to the verdict: “Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight. We will not back down. We will not be silenced.”
Greenpeace has also launched a countersuit in the Netherlands, accusing Energy Transfer of using “nuisance lawsuits” to suppress free speech and dissent. A hearing in that case is expected later this year.
Related Lawsuits and Future Impacts
The Dakota Access Pipeline protests have already led to multiple lawsuits. In October 2024, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed a new case against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, arguing that the pipeline is operating illegally without a proper environmental review. The section of the pipeline that crosses under Lake Oahe, near the reservation, still lacks a final permit.
Energy Transfer first filed its lawsuit in federal court, but after it was dismissed, the company moved the case to North Dakota state court. That state is one of the few in the country that does not have protections against what are called “SLAPP” lawsuits—Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Critics say SLAPP lawsuits are often used by powerful companies to silence critics by overwhelming them with legal costs.
Law professor Carl Tobias from the University of Richmond commented, “The verdict’s magnitude will have a chilling effect on environmental and other public interest litigation. It may encourage litigants in other states to file similar lawsuits.”
This case raises big questions about how far corporations can go to protect their image, and whether protest groups can safely speak out without being financially ruined. Supporters of Greenpeace worry that the ruling could scare off future activists and make it harder to challenge powerful interests.
Author and journalist Naomi Klein called the decision part of a larger trend of “attacks on protest and freedoms,” and wrote that fossil fuel companies should instead be forced to pay for the damage their operations have done to the planet.
While Energy Transfer won this legal battle, the broader fight over climate change, Indigenous rights, and protest freedoms is far from over. As Greenpeace prepares to appeal the verdict, many will be watching closely to see how the courts respond—and what it means for the future of activism in America.
