The full picture · 2 sources
Judge denies Greenpeace new trial in $345 million Dakota Access Pipeline case
Updated Nov 3, 6:07 AM CT. Every fact below links to the source that reported it.
What the primary sources show
- A North Dakota judge on Monday denied Greenpeace's request for a new trial in the lawsuit brought by Energy Transfer, developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline. [Bismarck Source] [KFYR-TV]
- A Morton County jury in early 2025 found Greenpeace at fault for encouraging illegal acts during the 2016 and 2017 protests and for publishing false statements that harmed Energy Transfer's reputation. [Bismarck Source] [KFYR-TV]
- The jury directed Greenpeace to pay about $667 million, and Judge James Gion later reduced the award to $345 million. [Bismarck Source] [KFYR-TV]
- Greenpeace argued the first trial was unfair, citing inaccurate evidence, errors in the jury instructions and verdict form, and possible jury pool bias in Morton County. [Bismarck Source] [KFYR-TV]
- Judge Gion said he did not find Greenpeace's arguments persuasive. [KFYR-TV]
What they left out / still unanswered
- The reports do not say when Greenpeace will file its Supreme Court appeal or how long that process will take.
- The reports do not say whether the judge ruled on Greenpeace's suggested Cass County venue.
- The reports do not say whether the $345 million judgment must be paid now or is on hold during the appeal.
Official line vs. how each source framed it
- Bismarck Source: Gives the fullest trial background, including testimony from law enforcement, Indigenous activists, and former Greenpeace employees, and names the three Greenpeace entities in the suit: Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International, and the Greenpeace Fund. Read it →
- KFYR-TV: Relays the North Dakota Monitor report and adds Energy Transfer's statement that the denial confirms the jury's finding, a quote from Greenpeace International general counsel Kristin Casper, and Greenpeace's suggestion of Cass County as a venue for a new trial. Read it → · Ads
701 News writes these summaries from the sources above and checks every sentence against them. Read the originals for the full reporting. Corrections