Judge Upholds $345M Verdict Against Greenpeace in Pipeline Suit

Greenpeace says the ruling threatens free speech rights in the U.S.

Published on Feb. 28, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A North Dakota judge finalized a $345 million jury award against Greenpeace over the environmental group's role in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline a decade ago. Greenpeace says the lawsuit was designed to silence its criticism of the pipeline project and that the verdict undermines free-speech rights in the U.S.

Why it matters

This case highlights the growing tension between corporations and environmental activists, with companies increasingly turning to lawsuits to try to silence their critics. The ruling could have far-reaching implications for free speech and the ability of advocacy groups to challenge major infrastructure projects.

The details

The verdict was reached last year after a trial brought by the pipeline company Energy Transfer, which claimed Greenpeace played a major role in the protests that delayed construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace argued it only played a supporting role in the nonviolent protests led by Native American groups. The judge said the jury must have found the evidence presented by Energy Transfer to be more credible.

  • The verdict was reached in 2025.
  • The judge finalized the $345 million award on February 28, 2026.

The players

Greenpeace

An international environmental advocacy group that was found liable for $345 million in a lawsuit brought by the pipeline company Energy Transfer over its role in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Energy Transfer

The pipeline company that sued Greenpeace and was awarded $345 million by a North Dakota jury over the environmental group's involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Judge James Gion

The North Dakota judge who finalized the $345 million verdict against Greenpeace.

Marco Simons

The interim general counsel at Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund, who said the lawsuit was designed to silence the group and that speaking out against corporations that cause environmental harm should not be deemed unlawful.

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

A Native American tribe that has maintained the Dakota Access Pipeline is a danger to its sole source of drinking water and continues to fight the project in court.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Speaking out against corporations that cause environmental harm should never be deemed unlawful. This is a setback, but the movement to defend people and the planet has always faced setbacks and resistance, and Energy Transfer will fail in its goal of silencing its critics.”

— Marco Simons, Interim General Counsel, Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund

“The jury heard that evidence and made their decision. The jury 'must have found the evidence presented by the plaintiffs to be more credible.'”

— Judge James Gion

What’s next

Greenpeace says it will seek a new trial and, if necessary, file an appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's fight to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline also continues in federal court.

The takeaway

This case highlights the growing tension between corporations and environmental advocates, with companies increasingly turning to lawsuits to try to silence criticism. The ruling could have far-reaching implications for free speech and the ability of advocacy groups to challenge major infrastructure projects in the future.