Court Orders Greenpeace to Pay $345 Million to US Oil Pipeline Company

Ruling finalizes a yearslong case that has pitted the environmental organization against Energy Transfer.

Published on Feb. 27, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A North Dakota court has ordered Greenpeace to pay $345 million in damages to the operator of the US oil pipeline it protested, finalizing this phase of the explosive, yearslong case. The Dallas-based energy conglomerate Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of orchestrating violence and defamation during the controversial construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline nearly a decade ago.

Why it matters

The case could have far-reaching implications for protest mobilization and advocacy movements, as legal experts and advocacy groups have closely followed the proceedings. The judgment is seen as a devastating blow not only for Greenpeace, but for the global environmental movement.

The details

A jury last year awarded more than $660 million in damages across three Greenpeace entities, citing charges including trespass, nuisance, conspiracy and deprivation of property access. The judge later cut those damages in half, determining some had been counted twice. Greenpeace categorically rejects the accusations, denouncing the proceedings as abusive and a means to silence dissent.

  • The case has been ongoing for nearly a decade since the Dakota Access Pipeline protests in 2016-2017.
  • The jury verdict was delivered last year.
  • The judge's final ruling was issued on February 27, 2026.

The players

Greenpeace

An international non-governmental environmental organization known for its activism and protests against environmental destruction.

Energy Transfer

A Dallas-based energy conglomerate that operates the Dakota Access Pipeline, which was the subject of major protests led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

Kelcy Warren

The billionaire CEO of Energy Transfer, who was open about his motivations in suing Greenpeace, saying his 'primary objective' was not just financial compensation but to 'send a message' and that activists 'should be removed from the gene pool.'

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“This legal fight is far from over. We will be requesting a new trial and, failing that, will appeal the judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, where Greenpeace International and the US Greenpeace entities have solid arguments for the dismissal of all legal claims against us.”

— Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International general counsel (AFP)

“Fossil fuel companies invest billions in new oil and gas while they spread misinformation, lobby against climate policies, and attempt to silence dissent against their destructive business model. They must not be allowed to act with impunity. These bullying lawsuits won't stop people from standing up to Big Oil to protect their communities and the planet.”

— Allie Rosenbluth, US campaign manager of Oil Change International (AFP)

What’s next

Greenpeace has indicated it will request a new trial and, if that fails, appeal the judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota. Energy Transfer has also objected to the halving of the original $660 million award.

The takeaway

This case highlights the growing trend of fossil fuel companies using legal action to silence environmental activism and protest, with potentially chilling implications for the global climate movement. The outcome will be closely watched for its impact on the ability of organizations like Greenpeace to continue challenging the industry's practices.