Federal Judge to Vacate $28M DAPL Protest Ruling as North Dakota Settles with U.S.

A federal judge has agreed to nullify a nearly $28 million judgment against the U.S. government, clearing the way for a settlement over costs North Dakota incurred during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. According to a report from the North Dakota Monitor, U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor indicated he would vacate his own 2025 ruling so the state and federal government can resolve the lawsuit.

The settlement, discussed in a hearing on Friday, May 8, 2026, would avoid further litigation in appeals court. Attorneys for both parties confirmed North Dakota will receive a "substantial monetary payment," though the amount was not disclosed. State Attorney General Drew Wrigley described the pending payment as satisfactory.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2019, centered on demonstrations against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) in rural south-central North Dakota in 2016 and 2017. The state argued the federal government unlawfully allowed protesters to camp on federal land, causing the protests to grow in size and intensity and forcing North Dakota to spend millions on policing and cleanup. The United States has denied these allegations.

Judge Traynor had sided with the state in April 2025, ordering the federal government to pay $28 million. The U.S. Department of Justice appealed that decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, setting the stage for the current settlement talks. As a condition of the agreement, the DOJ requested that Traynor's judgment and three other orders ruling against the United States be voided.

Department of Justice attorney Jonathan Guynn stated that vacating the rulings was necessary to prevent their legal conclusions from influencing future lawsuits. "The downstream consequences of keeping these on the books is troublesome for the United States," Guynn said during the hearing. He added that if the judge did not agree to axe the rulings, the U.S. would likely withdraw from the settlement and proceed with its appeal.

Attorneys for North Dakota acknowledged that Traynor's orders, which made findings about federal liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act, "could have utility holding the federal government to account" in future cases. However, they argued the benefit of a settlement—saving time and public money by ending the appeals process—outweighed that trade-off.

The resolution of this long-running case brings legal and financial closure to a contentious chapter tied to Bakken oil infrastructure. The Dakota Access Pipeline remains a critical conduit for moving crude from the Bakken formation to market, and this settlement removes a significant legal overhang related to its construction period.