On March 19, 2025, a jury in North Dakota delivered a crushing blow to the environmental group Greenpeace by ruling it liable for over $660 million dollars in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).
This verdict stems from protests against the pipeline in 2016. It alleges unlawful conduct by Greenpeace, including trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy, and defamation. The lawsuit targeted Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace Fund, and Greenpeace International.
This outcome could force Greenpeace Inc. to shut down its operations in the U.S., a development that raises troubling questions about the future of environmental activism and free speech in the United States. The case highlights the growing tension between environmental activism and corporate interests, and could set a precedent that might bankrupt activist organizations.
The Dakota Access Pipeline Protests
In 2016, the Dakota Access Pipeline was the site of environmental protest led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and their allies opposing its construction. The tribe argued that the pipeline threatened their water supply and desecrated sacred lands.
The protests drew thousands of demonstrators, including representatives from over 100 tribes and many environmental groups. Energy Transfer alleged Greenpeace coordinated and financed illegal activities during these protests.
Despite tens of thousands of people protesting against it, the pipeline eventually became operational, transporting 750,000 barrels of oil per day. This historical backdrop is important in understanding both the legal battle and the potential consequences for future activism.
The Charges Against Greenpeace
Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of defamation, alleging that the organization falsely claimed the pipeline had desecrated burial grounds and that Energy Transfer’s security forces used excessive force against protesters.
The company claimed that Greenpeace’s actions caused substantial financial losses. During court proceedings, Kelcy Warren, the chairman of Energy Transfer, testified about his attempts to negotiate with the tribal leaders to end the protests.
Greenpeace denied these accusations, arguing that they merely showed support for the movement and did not coordinate any illegal actions. They also argued that the alleged defamatory statements had already been reported before Greenpeace commented on them.
Greenpeace’s Defense and Allegations of Bias
Greenpeace’s legal team challenged the fairness of the trial’s location, arguing that the jury in Morton County, North Dakota, was likely biased due to the region’s deep involvement with the pipeline protests.
They cited an anonymously published newspaper, Central ND News, which they claimed was designed to negatively portray the protests and influence public opinion..
Despite these concerns, Greenpeace’s requests to change the hearing venue were denied. Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace International, emphasized the inherent bias of a jury drawn from a community directly affected by the events.
This defense highlights the difficulties activist groups encounter when they seek objective legal proceedings in places with close connections to the industries they oppose.
Financial Consequences for Greenpeace
The $660 million verdict poses a significant threat to Greenpeace, potentially forcing it to close its offices in the U.S. Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal adviser for Greenpeace USA. warned of the drastic consequences for environmental activism and free speech in the U.S.
The financial strain could severely limit Greenpeace’s ability to participate in future campaigns and legal battles. The ruling raises concerns about the long-term viability of environmental groups fighting similar lawsuits from powerful corporate entities. The verdict has the potential to set a chilling precedent, discouraging activism for fear of crippling financial penalties.
The Larger Implications for Environmental Activism
The lawsuit against Greenpeace reveals the increasing use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) by corporations to silence activists.
Usually devoid of merit, these lawsuits intend to intimidate and financially burden activists, hindering their ability to advocate for environmental causes.
Many states, such as North Dakota, lack anti-SLAPP laws leaving organizations like Greenpeace vulnerable to costly and time-consuming litigation. Experts argue that this creates a disproportionate burden on defendants — regardless of the case’s validity. This highlights the need for stronger legal protections for activists to ensure free speech and public participation.
Greenpeace’s Counter-Lawsuit in Europe
Following the North Dakota verdict, Greenpeace International announced it was counter-suing Energy Transfer in the Netherlands in line with a European Union directive against SLAPP.
This lawsuit seeks to recover damages and costs incurred in the North Dakota litigation. Greenpeace International general counsel Kristin Casper said the organization will continue to resist attacks on free speech and peaceful protest.
This decision follows a trend towards using global legal processes to protect activist rights and challenge corporate overreach. Depending on how this counter-lawsuit is resolved, it could have powerful implications for the fight against SLAPP tactics worldwide.
Energy Security and Political Support
Republican lawmakers strongly support the Dakota Access Pipeline, emphasizing its importance for energy security and economic growth. Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) praised the pipeline for playing a key role in North Dakota’s becoming a global energy powerhouse and strengthening national energy security.
The political support further accentuates the tension between economic interests and environmental concerns. Lawmakers have staunchly supported the uninterrupted operation and expansion of the pipeline, despite environmental objections. That political context frames the legal battle as part of a larger battle between environmental activism and pro-energy politics.
Potential Outcomes
While the verdict against Greenpeace is a blow to environmental activism, it also provides an opportunity for strategic recalibration. This financial crisis could force Greenpeace to streamline its operations and focus on more targeted, impactful campaigns.
One could argue that this ruling will galvanize public support and donations, reinforcing environmental activists’ resolve. In addition, it could inspire stronger legal protections for activists against SLAPP suits. Despite the immediate challenges, the long-term consequences could lead to a more resilient and resourceful environmental movement.
An Ongoing Battle
The $660 million verdict against Greenpeace marks a polarizing moment in the ongoing battle between environmental activism and corporate power. The financial implications could cripple Greenpeace and could set a worrying precedent for other activist organizations.
However, this crisis also presents an opportunity for strategic adaptation and a renewed commitment to protecting free speech and fighting for environmental advocacy.
The counter-lawsuit in Europe and potential legal reforms to combat SLAPP’s tactics could offer pathways to resilience. Ultimately, the outcome will depend on the ability of activist and legal advocates to defend their rights and challenge corporate overreach in the face of increasing financial and political pressures.
Explore more of our trending stories and hit Follow to keep them coming to your feed!
Don’t miss out on more stories like this! Hit the Follow button at the top of this article to stay updated with the latest news. Share your thoughts in the comments—we’d love to hear from you!
