A jury in North Dakota has delivered a devastating blow to Greenpeace, ordering the environmental campaign group to pay over $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the Texas-based oil company behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. The verdict, reached after two days of deliberations by a nine-person jury in Mandan, marks one of the most significant legal defeats for an environmental organization in recent history.
Greenpeace has vowed to appeal the decision, calling the lawsuit an attack on free speech and peaceful protest. Sushma Raman, the group’s interim executive director, warned that the case represents a growing trend of corporations using litigation to silence dissent. Greenpeace has long argued that the lawsuit was a SLAPP case—a “strategic lawsuit against public participation”—designed to drown activist groups in legal fees and deter future protest efforts.
Energy Transfer, however, hailed the ruling as a victory for law and order, arguing that Greenpeace had funded and trained protesters who disrupted communities in North Dakota during demonstrations against the pipeline nearly a decade ago. The company stated that the verdict sends a clear message about the difference between free speech and unlawful actions.
This legal battle stems from the mass protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline that erupted in 2016, when thousands of demonstrators, including members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, gathered to oppose the project over environmental and tribal sovereignty concerns. The pipeline, which transports crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois, faced fierce resistance due to its potential impact on water sources and sacred Indigenous land.
The ruling raises serious concerns for advocacy groups and could set a dangerous precedent for future environmental activism. If the verdict stands, Greenpeace could face financial ruin, forcing the organization to significantly scale back its work or even file for bankruptcy. The broader implications of this case will be closely watched as the appeal process unfolds, with free speech advocates, activists, and corporate interests all weighing in on what could be a landmark legal battle.
