Between August 2016 and February 2017, tens of thousands of people came to North Dakota to protest a crude oil pipeline that a Texas-based fossil fuel corporation called Energy Transfer was building near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The Tribe called for the protests due to concerns that the project — called the Dakota Access Pipeline — would threaten its drinking water supply, cultural heritage, and tribal sovereignty. Their efforts grew into the largest Indigenous-led protest movement in U.S. history and quickly attracted global attention.
The story of the Dakota Access Pipeline is complex. The protests were largely peaceful but had several moments of heightened tensions between some groups of protesters, local law enforcement, and the company’s private security forces. People held sharply different views about what happened during the protests, especially during the confrontations, with both sides accusing the other of violence.
A North Dakota court has held the Greenpeace defendants fully responsible for the costs of protests that involved tens of thousands of people
Soon after the pipeline became operational in 2017, Energy Transfer sued three nonprofit environmental organizations belonging to the Greenpeace network, accusing them of masterminding the protests. How the company intended to prove this allegation was unclear: the events that occurred at Standing Rock involved a complex web of thousands of people and organizations participating in, supporting, opposing, observing, surveilling, and policing the protests. Yet almost a decade later, in February 2026, a North Dakota court held the three Greenpeace organizations fully responsible for the costs of the protests and ordered them to pay $345 million to compensate the pipeline’s developers.
The judgment punishes lawful protest activities
The court’s judgment is the result of one of the biggest and most flawed trials in North Dakota’s history. Based on a review of the trial history, our view is that the two plaintiffs, Energy Transfer LP and its affiliate Dakota Access LLC, convinced the court to erroneously punish the defendants for constitutionally protected free speech and other lawful activities without evidence that the three nonprofit organizations had caused any harm. The judgment not only violates the U.S. Constitution and North Dakota law but also defies logic by holding Greenpeace fully responsible for every action, both lawful and unlawful, that occurred during the months of protests.
This case is an example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) — a retaliatory lawsuit to silence free speech — that has spiraled out of control. In this report, we provide an overview of the numerous ways in which the court mishandled this case, causing significant and undeserved harm to the defendants.
Two of the defendants played only a minor role in the protests, while one had no role whatsoever
Specifically, the lawsuit targets three entities from Greenpeace, a global network of 25 independent environmental organizations: Greenpeace, Inc. (a nonprofit organization based in the USA), the Greenpeace Fund (a nonprofit fundraising and grantmaking entity based in the USA), and Greenpeace International (a nonprofit organization based in the Netherlands).
Greenpeace, Inc. played a minor role in the protests. Six of its employees were among the thousands who traveled to Morton County, North Dakota. No evidence emerged at trial implicating anyone from Greenpeace, Inc. or any of the Greenpeace organizations in any wrongful activity. Yet the court held Greenpeace, Inc. liable for over $235 million.
Greenpeace International did not send any staff to North Dakota. Its only protest-related action was to add its name to a letter written by a Dutch nonprofit organization and signed by over 500 other nonprofit organizations, expressing concerns to the commercial banks that financed the project. For signing this letter, the court held Greenpeace International liable for over $65 million.
While Greenpeace Fund shared some overlapping staff with Greenpeace, Inc., the entity itself had no connection to the protests whatsoever. Nevertheless, the court held it liable for over $64 million.
This case should have been dismissed before going to trial
At the end of the trial, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $666 million in damages. The court later reduced that amount to $345 million but did not resolve the fundamental errors that occurred on its watch. This report describes a few of the court’s errors that, if handled appropriately, should have resulted in the case being dismissed before it ever went to trial:
- The court allowed the trial to take place in a venue (Morton County, North Dakota) where the defendants were unable to have a fair trial, both because of the sheer number of people in the jury pool who had direct experiences with the protests, and because of several apparent efforts to influence Morton County residents in the plaintiffs’ favor before the trial began.
- The court held the defendants liable for nearly $50 million for “defamation” even though the statements in question were constitutionally protected free speech, never shown to cause any harm to the plaintiffs, and never proven false.
- The court held the defendants liable for over $143 million for “tortious interference with business relations” as punishment for project delays that were neither caused by the defendants nor caused by torts.
- The court held the defendants liable for over $152 million for alleged property damages, even though Energy Transfer produced no evidence linking the defendants to any unlawful activities and made no distinction between lawful and unlawful protest activities when calculating its damages.
A protest is not automatic grounds for liability in a civil lawsuit, regardless of whether it causes disruptions or inconveniences for nearby residents
Many protest activities are constitutionally protected forms of free speech and freedom of assembly. Merely participating in protests or speaking out against a controversial, high-profile development project is not wrongdoing — and any inconvenience caused by protected First Amendment activity is not necessarily grounds for liability. To win in court, the plaintiff needs to demonstrate that it suffered harm that was caused by wrongdoing committed by the defendant.
Even in an era where people are keen to fight and punish those who have different ideological views from their own, this lawsuit stands out as an egregious example of misjustice. It never should have gone to trial. Instead, an error-prone court created the conditions for a verdict that the Greenpeace defendants rightly described as “unreasonable, extreme, and excessive.”
(Note: This text is the executive summary of the report. For full citations for this section, please see the report.)
