North Dakota Set for Major Settlement in Dakota Access Pipeline Protest Lawsuit
North Dakota is poised to receive a substantial monetary settlement from the federal government related to costs incurred during protests at the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), officials confirmed in a recent federal court hearing. The settlement aims to resolve a nearly $28 million judgment awarded against the federal government for expenses tied to policing and cleanup during the 2016-2017 demonstrations.
The nearly seven-year-old lawsuit alleges that the federal government allowed protesters to camp on federal land near the pipeline’s route in south-central North Dakota, which led to escalating demonstrations and increased state expenditures. North Dakota’s Attorney General Drew Wrigley described the pending payment as satisfactory but declined to disclose exact figures during the hearing.
Federal Judge to Void Previous Rulings to Finalize Settlement
Central to the settlement negotiations is a request from the U.S. Department of Justice to have U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor nullify his previous ruling that ordered the payment. The judge originally issued a detailed 120-page decision in April 2025, ruling the federal government liable for nearly $28 million in damages. The Department of Justice insists on voiding this and three other orders related to the case to prevent their legal conclusions from impacting future lawsuits.
“The downstream consequences of keeping these on the books is troublesome for the United States,” DOJ attorney Jonathan Guynn told the court. “We’re hoping we really don’t need to fight any further.”
If Traynor declines to vacate these rulings, the government has indicated it would likely resume appeals, potentially delaying the resolution and additional costs for both parties. However, North Dakota officials argue that finalizing the settlement now will save taxpayer money and eliminate the risk of having the judgment overturned on appeal.
Background: The Dakota Access Pipeline Protests and Legal Battle
The lawsuit, filed in 2019, stems from protests by Native American activists and environmental groups near Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, who opposed DAPL, fearing threats to water supply and tribal sovereignty. Demonstrations swelled in 2016 and 2017, prompting the state to spend millions on law enforcement and cleanup efforts.
Judge Traynor’s 2025 ruling found the federal government responsible under the Federal Tort Claims Act, leading to a $28 million award after deducting a prior $10 million payment from the Department of Justice. The government later appealed, pausing proceedings, but agreed to settlement talks last summer that halted appeals and moved toward resolution.
What’s Next: Settlement Details and Implementation
The settlement remains subject to final court approval. Once signed, North Dakota will receive a “substantial monetary payment”, bringing closure to a high-profile case that has taxed state and federal resources. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals will first need to remand the case back to Judge Traynor before he can officially vacate his previous orders and approve the settlement.
The case has drawn testimony from prominent figures, including former Governors Doug Burgum and Jack Dalrymple, Native activists, federal officials, and law enforcement personnel during a four-week 2024 trial in Bismarck, North Dakota. It has captured national attention for its implications on pipeline protests, tribal rights, and federal responsibility.
Why This Matters to Ohio and the US
While this case is rooted in North Dakota, it signals important national precedents about government accountability for managing large-scale protests impacting infrastructure projects. Similar protests and legal battles over pipelines and energy infrastructure have occurred across the country, including in regions closer to Ohio.
Understanding how federal liability and state costs are addressed could inform future litigation and policies affecting energy projects integral to the U.S. economy and environmental debates. The pending settlement may serve as a model for resolving complex disputes between states and the federal government over protest-related damages.
The Ohio Observer will continue to monitor this developing story and provide updates as the settlement details are finalized and further court rulings occur.
