North Dakota is on the verge of settling a landmark $28 million lawsuit with the federal government over costs linked to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, avoiding prolonged litigation and appeals that have stretched nearly seven years.
In a recent federal court hearing, attorneys for both sides disclosed that a settlement framework had been reached that would result in a “substantial monetary payment” to North Dakota, following a 2019 lawsuit demanding $38 million in damages related to expenses from the 2016-2017 protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) in rural south-central North Dakota.
North Dakota argued the federal government unlawfully allowed demonstrators to camp on federal land, escalating the size and cost of policing and cleanup. After a lengthy trial in Bismarck and a April federal court ruling awarding $28 million to the state, the United States Department of Justice appealed that decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal has been paused since last summer as settlement talks proceeded.
Judge Asked to Void Key Court Orders in Exchange for Settlement
Attorneys revealed the Department of Justice wants to nullify Judge Daniel Traynor’s key rulings, including his 120-page April decision, as part of the deal. DOJ attorneys expressed concern that retaining the rulings could influence future litigation against the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
“The downstream consequences of keeping these on the books is troublesome for the United States,” said DOJ attorney Jonathan Guynn.
Judge Traynor’s verdict had recognized the federal government’s responsibility for escalating the protests and the resulting state expenses, an important legal precedent for North Dakota. However, state lawyers believe the trade-off is worth avoiding the time and cost of the appeals process and preventing the risk of the judgment being overturned on appeal.
Attorney General Drew Wrigley called the pending settlement “satisfactory” on behalf of North Dakota but declined to disclose the final amount during the hearing. The settlement’s details will be made public once finalized.
Protest Background and Stakes
The Dakota Access Pipeline crosses the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, triggering massive protests over environmental and sovereignty concerns. North Dakota prosecutors say federal officials unlawfully permitted protesters to camp on federal lands, increasing public expense for containment, law enforcement, and cleanup. The state initially sought $38 million but had previously received $10 million from the Department of Justice for related costs.
The lawsuit’s resolution comes after four weeks of testimony from witnesses including former North Dakota governors, Native American activists, federal officials, and law enforcement.
What’s Next?
If Judge Traynor agrees to vacate his rulings, the case will officially close without further appeals. If not, the federal government has indicated it will withdraw from settlement talks and proceed with the appeal process, potentially extending the drawn-out legal battle.
This decision holds significance beyond North Dakota as it touches on federal liability in managing protest activity on public lands—a topic relevant nationwide amid ongoing debates over civil disobedience and government response.
For Californians and U.S. readers, the settlement signals the challenges states face when protests escalate on federal lands and the government’s legal responsibilities for resulting costs.
The Dakota Access Pipeline continues transporting crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois, a key link in the U.S. energy supply chain, underscoring the complex intersection of energy development, indigenous rights, and environmental concerns nationwide.
As this story develops, The California Herald will provide updates on the settlement’s final terms and broader implications for federal land management and protest law.
