BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A North Dakota judge said he will order Greenpeace to pay damages estimated to total $345 million related to protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline nearly a decade ago, a figure the environmental group claims it cannot pay.
In court documents filed Tuesday, Judge James Ginn said he will sign an order requiring several Greenpeace entities to pay the judgment against pipeline company Energy Transfer. He set jury damages at $345 million in a decision last year, but his latest filing did not specify the final amount.
The long-awaited order is expected to kick off an appeal process by both parties in the North Dakota Supreme Court.
Last year, a nine-member jury found Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace U.S. and funder Greenpeace Fund Inc. liable for defamation and other claims brought by Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access.
The jury found Greenpeace USA liable on all counts, including conspiracy, trespassing, nuisance and tortious interference. Two other entities were found liable for some of the claims.
The lawsuit stems from pipeline protests in 2016 and 2017, when thousands demonstrated and camped where the project’s Missouri River crosses the upper reaches of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Reservation. The tribe has long opposed the pipeline, arguing it poses a threat to its water supply.
Damages totaled $666.9 million and were divided among the three Greenpeace groups in different amounts before a judge reduced the verdict. Greenpeace USA’s share of the judgment was US$404 million.
Energy Transfer previously said it intended to appeal the reduced damages, calling the jury’s original findings and damages “lawful and just”. The Associated Press emailed the company asking for comment on the judge’s Tuesday action.
In a financial filing late last year, Greenpeace USA said it did not have enough funds to pay the $404 million the jury ordered “or to continue normal operations after the verdict is enforced.” The group said it had $1.4 million in cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2024, and total assets of $23 million.
Greenpeace declined to comment on the judge’s filing on Tuesday, but Marco Simons, Greenpeace’s interim U.S. general counsel, reiterated that the organization could not afford the verdict.
“As a mid-sized nonprofit, it’s clear that we don’t have the ability to pay for hundreds of millions of dollars in losses,” Simmons said Wednesday.
Simmons added that the case was far from over and expressed optimism about the group’s planned appeal.
“These claims should never have been put before a jury, and there are many legal grounds for appeal, including a lack of evidence to support key findings and legitimate concerns about the likelihood of ensuring fairness,” Simmons said.
Greenpeace said the lawsuit seeks to use the courts to silence activists and critics and suppress First Amendment rights. The pipeline company said the lawsuit was about Greenpeace’s failure to comply with the law, not free speech.
At the trial, a lawyer for Energy Transfer said Greenpeace orchestrated a plan to stop the pipeline, including organizing protesters, sending blockade supplies and making false claims about the project.
Lawyers for the Greenpeace entities said there was no evidence to support the company’s claims that Greenpeace employees had little or no involvement in the protests and that the groups had nothing to do with Energy Transfer’s construction or refinancing delays.
