Greenpeace
A jury in North Dakota ordered the environmental group Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million to Energy Transfer and Dakota Access LLC for its role in defaming the company and inciting illegal behavior.A jury in North Dakota ordered the environmental group Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million to Energy Transfer and Dakota Access LLC for its role in defaming the company and inciting illegal behavior during protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017. Energy Transfer filed the lawsuit in 2019, suing Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International, and Greenpeace Fund.
The jury found Greenpeace USA liable for nearly $404 million, while Greenpeace Fund Inc. and Greenpeace International were each held responsible for approximately $131 million. It was the second-largest win in the history of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the law firm representing the pipeline developer. In addition, it was “one of the largest and most complex civil suits” in North Dakota’s history, as reported by the North Dakota Monitor.
Energy Transfer alleged Greenpeace provided “resources, including supplies, intel, and training, to encourage Dakota Access Pipeline protesters to commit criminal acts to stop construction of the project.” The pipeline company also accused “Greenpeace of intentionally spread[ing] misinformation about the pipeline to tarnish its reputation with banks.”
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe allegedly initiated the protests, drawing thousands more protesters to join. The protests began when Energy Transfer Partners, a Texas-based developer, applied with the Army Corps of Engineers to construct the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The Sioux Tribe contended the Dakota Access Pipeline “violates Article 11 of the Fort Laramie Treaty, which guarantees the ‘undisturbed use and occupation’ of reservation lands surrounding the proposed location of the pipeline.”
Tribal leaders stated the DAPL posed “a serious risk to the very survival of our Tribe… and would destroy valuable cultural resources.” The Tribe sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in a separate case in 2016, alleging the pipeline was allowed to continue to operate without a proper easement.
According to video testimony presented during the three-week trial, Greenpeace supplied protesters with “supplies, intel, and training” during the prolonged demonstrations. According to the North Dakota Monitor, Greenpeace allegedly “brought supplies like tents, power tools, a van equipped with solar panels, cameras, binoculars and propane. They taught protesters about ‘nonviolent direct action.’ As colder weather approached, they also helped to winterize the camp.” Greenpeace maintained the protests were “Indigenous-led” and “only provided support to demonstrators because it was asked.”
Greenpeace claimed the lawsuit was an attempt to suppress free speech and peaceful protest. However, protesters engaged in direct actions against the construction of the pipeline which led to damage to construction equipment, infrastructure, and property. Protesters allegedly vandalized equipment, sabotaged vehicles, and blocked access to the pipeline with physical barriers to construction sites.
<img alt captext="Greenpeace” class=”post-image-right” src=”https://conservativenewsbriefing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/greenpeace-loses-in-north-dakota.jpg” width=”450″>Energy Transfer hired private security firms to protect the pipeline construction. However, clashes between protesters and security personnel led to damage and injuries. There were instances where protesters threw rocks, and in response, law enforcement used non-lethal force, resulting in injuries on both sides. In addition to clashes, the use of water cannons in freezing temperatures during a demonstration allegedly caused health concerns, leading to lawsuits and claims of excessive force by law enforcement.
Energy Transfer faced significant costs in restoring construction sites and dealing with damage caused by protests. The need to repair or replace damaged equipment and secure construction areas added substantial costs to the project’s timeline. Additionally, Energy Transfer claimed the delays cost the company tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue and increased operational expenses.
Legal battles also led to increased expenses for the pipeline company. The protests generated widespread media attention, putting Energy Transfer at the center of a highly contentious environmental and social debate.
In July 2020, U.S. District Court judge James Boasberg (the samer judge currently under fire for harassing the president) ordered the shutdown of the DAPL. Energy Transfer asserted Boasberg “exceeded his authority in ordering the shutdown,” and cessation of the project would cause significant “economic implications” for the pipeline project.
In its July 6, 2020 statement, in response to the shutdown, Energy Transfer held that “[b]illions of dollars in tax and royalty revenue will be lost by state, local and tribal governments in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois.” The company also stated the pipeline project was safe and environmentally responsible.
“The economic implications of the Judge’s order are too big to ignore and we will do all we can to ensure its continued operation. The Dakota Access Pipeline is the only direct pipeline from North Dakota to the distribution hub in Patoka, Illinois, from where this domestically produced Bakken-produced crude oil is transported to refineries throughout the Midwest and the Gulf Coast. Billions of dollars in tax and royalty revenue will be lost by state, local and tribal governments in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois. Farmers will suffer as crude transportation will move to rail, displacing corn, wheat and soy crops that would normally be moved to market. Ironically, the counties along these rail lines will face increased environmental risks due to the increased amount of crude oil travelling [sic] by rail.”
“This pipeline is the safest, most environmentally responsible method for moving North Dakota’s crude oil to refining markets around the country. Shutting down this critical piece of infrastructure would throw our country’s crude supply system out of balance, negatively impact several significant industries, inflict more damage on an already struggling economy, and jeopardize our national security.”
Following the verdict, the lawsuit’s lead attorney Trey Cox wrote in a statement: “Peaceful protest is an inherent American right; however, violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable.” The decision represents “reckoning and accountability for Greenpeace.” Greenpeace will likely appeal.
Image: Greenpeace
