Greenpeace Faces Major Legal Setback: Jury Awards Energy Transfer Millions

Mon Dec 01 2025 02:27:13 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

A North Dakota jury ruled in favor of pipeline company Energy Transfer, holding Greenpeace liable for significant damages linked to Dakota Access Pipeline protests.

In a significant legal ruling, a North Dakota jury awarded Energy Transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in damages from Greenpeace, attributing a major role to the environmental group in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace alleged the lawsuit aimed to silence its opposition to the oil industry, but the jury's decision marks a critical loss for the organization against a backdrop of fierce protests and public attention.

A Texas jury has delivered a stunning blow to Greenpeace, awarding hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to Energy Transfer, the pipeline giant behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. The lawsuit, rooted in events that unfolded nearly a decade ago during widespread protests, has raised concerns about the financial future of the famed environmental group. Greenpeace has argued that its involvement in the demonstrations, led primarily by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, was minimal and that the lawsuit is an attempt to suppress dissent against the oil industry.

The verdict, reached after two days of deliberations by a nine-person jury in Morton County, North Dakota, resonates beyond the courtroom, reflecting a deep divide over environmental activism and corporate interests. Energy Transfer's co-founder, Kelcy Warren, known for his financial support of former President Trump and vocal opposition to the protests, stated during closing arguments that the narrative surrounding his company was a "total false narrative."

The legal battle drew nationwide attention, with the protests that erupted in 2016 and 2017 at Standing Rock attracting thousands of demonstrators and solidarity actions across the country. As this case unfolds, it not only presents immediate financial implications for Greenpeace but also raises critical questions about the future of environmental activism amid increasing legal pressures.