Greenpeace $345m ruling triggers major US appeal battle

Published: 26 February 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

A North Dakota court has delivered a dramatic Greenpeace $345m ruling that could reshape environmental activism in the United States. The decision stems from protests nearly a decade ago against the controversial Dakota Access pipeline. A state judge confirmed he will sign an order requiring Greenpeace entities to pay damages linked to those demonstrations. The Greenpeace $345m ruling now sets the stage for a high-stakes appeal process expected to reach the state’s highest court.

Judge James Gion outlined his position in court papers filed this week in North Dakota. He stated he would finalise an order directing several Greenpeace organisations to satisfy the judgment. The damages were previously reduced from a much larger jury award issued last year. While the latest filing did not restate the precise total, it followed an earlier reduction to $345 million. That figure remains deeply contested by the environmental groups involved.

The legal dispute centres on protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline in 2016 and 2017. The project, developed by Dallas-based Energy Transfer, crosses beneath the Missouri River in North Dakota. Demonstrations drew thousands of activists who camped near the construction site for months. Many were supporting the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which argued the pipeline threatened its water supply and sacred lands.

Last year, a nine-person jury found multiple Greenpeace entities liable for defamation and related claims. Those entities included Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund Inc. The jury concluded that Greenpeace USA was responsible on all counts presented. These included conspiracy, trespass, nuisance, and tortious interference with business relations.

The other two organisations were found liable on some, though not all, of the claims. Damages initially totalled $666.9 million before judicial review reduced the award. Judge Gion cut the total by roughly half, setting it at $345 million. Greenpeace USA’s share of the original verdict stood at $404 million before that reduction.

The Greenpeace $345m ruling has sparked immediate debate over accountability and free expression. Greenpeace argues it cannot afford to pay such a sum. In a financial disclosure submitted late last year, Greenpeace USA detailed its fiscal position. The organisation reported cash and cash equivalents of just $1.4 million. Total assets were listed at approximately $23 million as of December 2024.

Interim general counsel Marco Simons stated publicly that the organisation lacks the resources to comply. He described Greenpeace as a mid-sized nonprofit unable to meet damages in the hundreds of millions. Simons emphasised that enforcement of the judgment could halt normal operations. He also indicated that the group intends to pursue an appeal vigorously.

According to Simons, several legal grounds may justify overturning the verdict. He suggested that key findings lacked sufficient evidentiary support. He also raised concerns about whether fairness was fully ensured during proceedings. Greenpeace maintains that its involvement in the protests was limited and lawful.

Energy Transfer has taken a markedly different stance. The company previously described the original jury findings as lawful and just. It has indicated that it may challenge the reduction in damages. Representatives argue that the lawsuit concerns compliance with the law rather than free speech rights.

During the trial, attorneys for Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of orchestrating efforts to halt pipeline construction. They alleged that the organisation helped coordinate protesters and provided logistical support. Claims were also made that misleading statements were circulated about the pipeline’s safety and environmental impact. Company lawyers argued these actions caused financial harm and project delays.

Greenpeace’s defence team rejected those accusations throughout the proceedings. They argued there was no concrete evidence linking staff to unlawful activities. Lawyers said Greenpeace employees had little or no direct involvement in the camps. They further contended that construction delays stemmed from broader regulatory and financial issues, not activist interference.

The protests at Standing Rock became a global symbol of environmental resistance. Demonstrators from across the United States and beyond joined the encampments. Images of clashes between protesters and law enforcement circulated widely on social media. The events generated intense public debate about fossil fuels and indigenous rights.

Supporters of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe framed the movement as a defence of water. The pipeline’s planned crossing beneath Lake Oahe raised concerns about potential leaks. Tribal leaders argued that contamination could jeopardise drinking water and cultural heritage. Federal authorities eventually completed an environmental review, but tensions persisted long afterward.

The Greenpeace $345m ruling now revives memories of those turbulent months. It also raises fresh questions about the boundaries of protest activity. Legal analysts note that large civil judgments can have chilling effects on advocacy groups. At the same time, courts routinely assess liability when businesses demonstrate measurable losses.

Appeals are expected from both sides in the coming months. The case will likely move to the North Dakota Supreme Court. That process could take considerable time before a final outcome emerges. Until then, uncertainty surrounds whether the damages will ultimately be upheld or modified.

For Greenpeace, the stakes extend beyond financial strain. A confirmed judgment of this magnitude could influence donor confidence. It may also affect partnerships with other environmental organisations worldwide. Leaders insist they will continue campaigning on climate and conservation issues despite legal pressures.

For Energy Transfer, the ruling represents a significant legal victory, albeit incomplete. Company executives maintain that they were unfairly targeted during the protests. They argue that misinformation harmed investors and contractors. A final appellate decision may determine whether reduced damages stand.

Observers in the United Kingdom are watching developments closely. British environmental groups have faced their own legal challenges in recent years. The outcome of the Greenpeace $345m ruling could inform strategies for campaigners internationally. It may also shape corporate responses to large-scale demonstrations.

The broader debate touches on the balance between lawful protest and corporate protection. Democracies rely on freedom of expression to address contentious policies. However, courts also protect businesses from defamation and unlawful disruption. This tension often surfaces in high-profile environmental disputes.

As the appeal unfolds, both sides will marshal extensive legal arguments. Greenpeace aims to demonstrate procedural or evidentiary flaws in the verdict. Energy Transfer will defend the jury’s conclusions and challenge the damages reduction. The coming months promise further developments in a case already rich with complexity.

For now, the Greenpeace $345m ruling stands as a pivotal chapter in the Dakota Access saga. It underscores how events from nearly a decade ago still resonate powerfully today. Whether the final judgment remains intact will depend on appellate scrutiny. What remains certain is that the legal and moral questions raised will continue shaping public discourse.

Check our latest news