Judge Orders Greenpeace to Pay $345 Million Over Dakota Access Pipeline Protest
A North Dakota judge has announced he will sign an order requiring Greenpeace to pay damages expected to total $345 million in connection with protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline from nearly a decade ago. This figure, which the environmental group contends it cannot pay, stems from a lawsuit filed by the pipeline company Energy Transfer.
Legal Battle and Damages Reduction
In court papers filed on Tuesday, Judge James Gion stated he would order several Greenpeace entities to pay the judgment to Dallas-based Energy Transfer. He set the amount at $345 million last year, reducing a jury's damages by about half. The original damages totaled $666.9 million, divided among Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund Inc, with Greenpeace USA's share at $404 million.
The long-awaited order is expected to initiate an appeal process in the North Dakota Supreme Court from both sides. Last year, a nine-person jury found the Greenpeace organizations liable for defamation, conspiracy, trespass, nuisance, and tortious interference related to the 2016 and 2017 protests.
Background of the Protests
The lawsuit originates from pipeline protests in 2016 and 2017, when thousands of demonstrators camped near the project's Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation. The tribe has long opposed the pipeline as a threat to its water supply. Energy Transfer claimed Greenpeace orchestrated plans to stop construction, including organizing protesters and making untrue statements, while Greenpeace argued there was no evidence for these claims and that their employees had minimal involvement.
Financial and Legal Implications
In a financial filing late last year, Greenpeace USA stated it does not have the funds to pay the $404 million ordered by the jury or to continue normal operations if the judgment is enforced. The group reported cash and cash equivalents of $1.4 million and total assets of $23 million as of December 31, 2024. Marco Simons, Greenpeace USA interim general counsel, reiterated that the organization cannot afford the judgment, calling the case a weaponization of the legal system to silence activists.
Simons expressed optimism about the planned appeal, citing a lack of evidence and concerns about fairness. Energy Transfer, meanwhile, has indicated it intends to appeal the reduced damages, asserting the original findings were lawful and just. The case highlights ongoing tensions between environmental activism and corporate interests in the energy sector.
