Energy Transfer LP and Trey Cox get their Win, and their Pipeline
In a case that has become a flashpoint in the national debate over environmental activism and corporate accountability, a North Dakota jury’s sweeping verdict against Greenpeace has transformed a years-old protest movement into one of the most consequential civil judgments in recent memory. What began as opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline ultimately resulted in a civil judgment of approximately $345 million against Greenpeace entities, following a jury’s original $667 million award and a later reduction by the presiding judge, James Gion of the North Dakota District Court.
The origins of the dispute trace back to 2016, when thousands of demonstrators gathered near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation to protest construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and its supporters warned that the pipeline’s route beneath the Missouri River posed a risk to water supplies and sacred lands. Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International, and Greenpeace Fund Inc. publicly supported the movement, amplifying environmental concerns and lending organizational backing to the protest effort.
Energy Transfer LP, the Texas-based developer of the pipeline, viewed those efforts differently. The company contended that Greenpeace’s involvement crossed the line from protected advocacy into unlawful conduct. After an earlier federal lawsuit was dismissed, Energy Transfer filed suit in North Dakota state court in 2019, alleging defamation, civil conspiracy, trespass, nuisance, and interference with business relations. At its core, the company argued that Greenpeace played a central role in encouraging and sustaining actions that delayed construction and caused financial harm.
The case went to trial in Morton County in early 2025. After weeks of testimony and argument, a nine-person jury returned a stunning verdict: approximately $667 million in combined compensatory and punitive damages against the Greenpeace entities. The size of the award immediately drew national attention, both for its magnitude and for the implications it carried for advocacy organizations.
Publicly associated with Energy Transfer’s legal team was attorney Trey Cox, who characterized the verdict as a long-awaited moment of accountability. From the company’s perspective, the jury had recognized that the protests were not merely spontaneous expressions of dissent but were fueled, organized, and amplified in ways that inflicted measurable economic damage.
Greenpeace’s defense was led publicly by Marco Simons, interim general counsel for Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund. Simons forcefully rejected the allegations and framed the lawsuit as a strategic effort to silence environmental speech. He maintained that Greenpeace engaged in constitutionally protected advocacy and peaceful protest, and he warned that imposing crushing civil liability on a nonprofit for supporting a protest movement risked chilling free expression nationwide.
The legal drama did not end with the jury’s announcement. Judge James Gion undertook a post-trial review of the award, examining whether each component was supported by law and evidence. In a detailed ruling later in 2025, he reduced the total damages from $667 million to approximately $345 million. The reduction reflected findings that certain damage categories were duplicative or exceeded statutory or constitutional limits, particularly with respect to punitive damages. Even so, Judge Gion left intact substantial portions of the compensatory award, preserving a judgment that remains one of the largest ever entered against an environmental advocacy organization.
When the judgment was finalized in early 2026, it carried not only the $345 million principal figure but also the prospect of accruing interest from the date of the original verdict. For Greenpeace, the financial stakes are existential. The organization has announced plans to appeal, arguing that the verdict threatens core First Amendment protections. Greenpeace International has also initiated related proceedings abroad, invoking European anti-SLAPP principles in an effort to challenge what it characterizes as litigation designed to deter public participation.
For Energy Transfer, the case represents vindication after years of reputational and financial strain linked to the pipeline protests. The company has signaled that it may seek to reinstate portions of the original jury award that were reduced, underscoring its view that the full $667 million figure reflected the scope of harm it suffered.
Beyond the parties themselves, the case occupies a volatile intersection of law, politics, and public protest. Supporters of the verdict argue that advocacy groups must remain accountable if their actions contribute to unlawful conduct or economic damage. Critics counter that imposing hundreds of millions of dollars in liability on a nonprofit for its role in a protest movement risks deterring robust public debate on matters of environmental and social concern.
As the appeals process unfolds, the judgment stands as both a financial reckoning and a symbolic marker. It raises enduring questions about where protected speech ends and actionable conduct begins, and about how courts should navigate disputes in which corporate interests and grassroots activism collide. Whether the $345 million judgment ultimately survives further review may shape not only the future of Greenpeace, but also the boundaries of protest litigation in the United States for years to come.