Greenpeace Hit with Massive Verdict Over Dakota Access Pipeline Protests

Mandan, North Dakota — March 19, 2025 A North Dakota jury has ordered Greenpeace to pay Energy Transfer, the operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline, a staggering $667 million in damages. The unanimous verdict, delivered on Wednesday after a contentious five-week trial, found Greenpeace liable for defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy, and other claims tied to its role in the high-profile protests against the pipeline nearly a decade ago. The ruling marks a significant escalation in the ongoing clash between fossil fuel companies and environmental activists, with far-reaching implications for free speech, protest rights, and the financial stability of advocacy groups like Greenpeace.

The case, heard in Morton County Courthouse in Mandan, North Dakota, stemmed from the massive protests in 2016 and 2017 that sought to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), a 1,172-mile crude oil conduit stretching from North Dakota’s Bakken oil fields to a hub in Patoka, Illinois. Energy Transfer, a Dallas-based energy giant valued at nearly $70 billion, accused Greenpeace of orchestrating a calculated campaign of misinformation, vandalism, and violence that delayed the $3.8 billion project and inflicted substantial financial losses. Greenpeace, in turn, has fiercely denied the allegations, framing the lawsuit as a strategic attack on its First Amendment rights and a broader attempt to silence dissent against the fossil fuel industry.

The Dakota Access Pipeline became a global symbol of resistance to fossil fuel infrastructure when construction began in 2016. The project’s route, which included a crossing beneath the Missouri River just upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation, sparked outrage among Indigenous communities and environmentalists who feared a potential oil spill could contaminate the tribe’s water supply and desecrate sacred lands. Over eight months, thousands of protesters—including members of more than 300 tribal nations, climate activists, and celebrities—converged on a remote prairie site near Cannon Ball, North Dakota, establishing sprawling encampments to block the pipeline’s path.

The protests, often marked by tense standoffs with law enforcement, resulted in hundreds of arrests and drew international attention to the clash between Indigenous sovereignty, environmental concerns, and corporate interests. Private security forces hired by Energy Transfer unleashed attack dogs and pepper spray on nonviolent demonstrators, images of which fueled global solidarity with the Standing Rock movement. Despite the resistance, the pipeline received federal approval under the Trump administration in 2017 and began transporting oil that June, though it remains the subject of ongoing litigation by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

Greenpeace, a nonprofit with a 50-year legacy of environmental advocacy, entered the fray as a vocal supporter of the Indigenous-led movement. The organization provided supplies to winterize protest camps, funded travel for Indigenous trainers to teach nonviolent resistance tactics, and co-signed letters urging banks to divest from Energy Transfer. However, Energy Transfer’s lawsuit painted a starkly different picture, alleging that Greenpeace was not a mere participant but the mastermind behind a “full-blown sabotage operation” designed to cripple the company’s operations and reputation.

In its legal filings, Energy Transfer claimed that Greenpeace entities—Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International (based in Amsterdam), and the Greenpeace Fund—engaged in an “unlawful and violent scheme” that cost the company dearly. The pipeline operator alleged that Greenpeace paid professional protesters, supplied lockboxes for demonstrators to chain themselves to equipment, shared intelligence about the pipeline route, and organized training sessions to incite unrest. Beyond physical disruptions, Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of defaming the company with false statements, such as claims that it deliberately desecrated burial grounds—assertions the company said damaged its standing with international investors.

During the trial, Energy Transfer’s lead attorney, Trey Cox, told the nine-person jury that the protests led to a five-month delay in the pipeline’s completion, costing the company $80 million in lost oil transport revenue. Additional damages included $96 million in lost financing, $7 million in public relations expenses, and millions more in security and infrastructure costs. Cox argued that Greenpeace’s actions went far beyond protected speech, crossing into illegal territory. “This needs to be done for Morton County’s law enforcement and the next community where Greenpeace exploits an opportunity to push its agenda at any cost,” he said in his closing arguments, according to the Associated Press.

Energy Transfer’s billionaire founder, Kelcy Warren—a major donor to former President Donald Trump—testified in a video deposition that the company had offered financial incentives, including cash, a luxury ranch, and a new school, to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to end the protests. The tribe declined, a decision Warren framed as evidence of intransigence fueled by Greenpeace’s influence. “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,” said Vicki Granado, an Energy Transfer spokesperson, in a statement following the verdict.

Greenpeace mounted a vigorous defense, arguing that its involvement in the protests was minimal and aligned with its mission to support Indigenous rights and combat climate change. Attorneys for the group asserted that Energy Transfer failed to prove its claims, pointing to a lack of testimony from law enforcement or security personnel linking Greenpeace to violence or property destruction. “No one testified that Greenpeace was the cause of any violence or a leader in the protests,” said Everett Jack Jr., an attorney for Greenpeace USA, during closing arguments reported by AP News.

The organization also contended that the statements Energy Transfer labeled as defamatory—such as those about burial ground desecration—were not unique to Greenpeace but echoed by numerous advocacy groups and protected under the First Amendment. One such statement appeared in a letter to banks financing the pipeline, signed by Greenpeace alongside over 500 other organizations. “The letter would have been sent with or without Greenpeace’s name on it,” said Courtney DeThomas, an attorney for Greenpeace International, challenging the notion that the group single-handedly swayed lenders.

Greenpeace framed the lawsuit as a textbook example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), a tactic used by corporations to intimidate critics through costly litigation. “This case is a prime example of corporations abusing the legal system to silence critics and keep their operations secret,” said Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace USA, in a statement before the trial. The group warned that a loss could bankrupt its U.S. affiliate, which reported $40 million in revenue in 2023, and set a dangerous precedent for holding protest participants liable for the actions of others. “It’s pretty easy to see how, if successful, this kind of tactic could have a serious chilling effect on anyone who might consider participating in a protest,” said Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace USA’s senior legal adviser.

After two days of deliberation, the jury delivered its verdict on March 19, 2025, awarding Energy Transfer $667 million—far exceeding the $300 million the company initially sought. The damages, to be split among the three Greenpeace entities, included compensation for defamation, trespass, nuisance, and conspiracy. The sheer scale of the award stunned observers, with Greenpeace announcing immediate plans to appeal. “We’re just getting started with our fight against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest,” Padmanabha said outside the courthouse. “Our work is never going to stop.”

The verdict has ignited a firestorm of debate among environmentalists, legal experts, and free speech advocates. Critics, including a trial-monitoring committee featuring veteran First Amendment lawyer Marty Garbus, denounced the proceedings as “deeply flawed,” alleging jury bias in oil-rich North Dakota and judicial mishandling of complex legal issues. “In my six decades of legal practice, I have never witnessed a trial as unfair as this one,” Garbus said, predicting a strong chance of reversal on appeal.

Meanwhile, Energy Transfer hailed the ruling as a triumph for “law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law.” The company’s supporters argue that the verdict sends a clear message to activist groups that disruptive tactics carry consequences, particularly when they target critical infrastructure.

The Greenpeace verdict arrives at a pivotal moment for the environmental movement, as fossil fuel companies increasingly turn to SLAPP suits to counter opposition. Similar cases have targeted Greenpeace entities in Europe, with Shell and Total facing backlash for unsuccessful attempts to silence the group. In the U.S., where more than 30 states have anti-SLAPP laws, North Dakota’s lack of such protections made it a vulnerable battleground for this legal showdown.

For Greenpeace, the financial stakes are existential. A $667 million judgment dwarfs its annual budget, potentially forcing the closure of its U.S. operations unless mitigated by an appeal or fundraising efforts. The group has already filed an anti-SLAPP countersuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, leveraging a new European Union directive to recover costs from what it calls “meritless” litigation.

Beyond Greenpeace, the ruling could reverberate across activist movements, deterring participation in protests out of fear of crippling liability. “The idea that Greenpeace’s light participation caused anything close to the damages Energy Transfer recovered is just not plausible,” said Abigail Dillen, president of the environmental law firm Earthjustice, echoing concerns about a chilling effect on advocacy.

For the fossil fuel industry, the victory bolsters a strategy of legal counteroffensives against environmental opposition, particularly under a Trump administration sympathetic to oil interests. With Kelcy Warren’s ties to Trump and North Dakota’s former governor Doug Burgum now serving as Interior Secretary, the political landscape may further tilt in favor of such corporate wins.

As the dust settles in Mandan, the battle over the Dakota Access Pipeline protests has shifted from the prairie to the courtroom—and now, potentially, to the appeals process. What began as a fight over oil has morphed into a high-stakes struggle over the future of protest, speech, and the balance of power between corporations and their critics. For Greenpeace and its allies, the verdict is a costly defeat, but one they vow will not mark the end of their resistance. 17GEN4.com