North Dakota Judge to Order $345 Million Payment from Greenpeace in Pipeline Protest Case
A North Dakota judge has announced his intention to sign an order requiring multiple Greenpeace organizations to pay an expected $345 million to pipeline company Energy Transfer. This decision stems from legal actions connected to protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline that occurred nearly a decade ago.
Court Proceedings and Judgment Details
In court documents filed on Tuesday, Judge James Gion confirmed he would issue the order directing several Greenpeace entities to pay the substantial judgment to Dallas-based Energy Transfer. The judge had previously set the amount at $345 million last year, which represented a reduction of approximately half from the original jury-awarded damages. His latest filing did not specify a final precise figure, but the expected total remains at $345 million.
The long-awaited judicial order is anticipated to initiate an appeal process that will likely proceed to the North Dakota Supreme Court, with both parties expected to challenge aspects of the ruling.
Background of the Lawsuit and Jury Findings
The legal action originates from the extensive pipeline protests during 2016 and 2017, when thousands of demonstrators gathered and established camps near the project's Missouri River crossing. This location is upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation, with the tribe consistently opposing the pipeline due to concerns about potential threats to their water supply.
Last year, a nine-person jury found Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. liable for various claims including defamation brought by Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access. The jury determined Greenpeace USA was liable on all counts, which included conspiracy, trespass, nuisance, and tortious interference. The other two Greenpeace entities were found liable for some of the claims.
Original damages had totaled $666.9 million, distributed in different amounts among the three Greenpeace organizations before Judge Gion reduced the judgment. Greenpeace USA's share of that original judgment was $404 million.
Financial Implications and Organizational Responses
In a financial filing from late last year, Greenpeace USA stated unequivocally that it lacks the financial resources to pay the $404 million originally ordered by the jury. The organization further indicated it would be unable to continue normal operations if such a judgment were enforced. According to their financial statements, Greenpeace USA reported cash and cash equivalents of $1.4 million and total assets of $23 million as of December 31, 2024.
Greenpeace declined to comment specifically on Judge Gion's Tuesday filing. However, Greenpeace USA interim general counsel Marco Simons reiterated the organization's financial limitations, stating, "As mid-sized nonprofits, it has always been clear that we would not have the ability to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages."
Simons emphasized that the legal case remains far from concluded, expressing optimism about their planned appeal. "These claims never should have reached a jury, and there are many possible legal grounds for appeal – including a lack of evidence to support key findings and valid concerns about the possibility of ensuring fairness," Simons added.
Contrasting Perspectives on the Legal Action
Greenpeace has consistently maintained that the lawsuit represents an attempt to utilize the court system to silence activists and critics, potentially chilling First Amendment rights. The environmental organization argues this legal action is designed to intimidate and suppress legitimate protest and criticism.
Conversely, Energy Transfer has asserted that the lawsuit fundamentally concerns Greenpeace's alleged failure to follow established laws rather than issues of free speech. During the trial, an attorney representing Energy Transfer claimed that Greenpeace orchestrated comprehensive plans to halt the pipeline's construction, including organizing protesters, supplying blockade materials, and disseminating false statements about the project.
Attorneys representing the Greenpeace entities countered these allegations, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the company's claims. They maintained that Greenpeace employees had minimal or no involvement in the protests and that the organizations bore no responsibility for Energy Transfer's construction delays or refinancing challenges.
Energy Transfer previously indicated its intention to appeal the reduced damages, describing the original jury findings and damages as "lawful and just." The Associated Press contacted the company for comment regarding Judge Gion's Tuesday action, but no immediate response was available.
