Judge to Void $28M DAPL Protest Judgment, State Secures Settlement

A federal judge has agreed to throw out a nearly $28 million judgment against the U.S. government, clearing the way for a settlement that will end a long-running lawsuit over costs North Dakota incurred during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. According to the North Dakota Monitor, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor indicated he will nullify his own April 2025 ruling to allow the state and federal government to reach a final agreement.

The settlement, discussed in a hearing on Friday, May 8, 2026, will provide North Dakota with a "substantial monetary payment," state and federal attorneys said. While the exact amount was not disclosed, North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley described it as satisfactory. The deal aims to avoid further litigation in the appeals court, putting the nearly seven-year-old lawsuit to rest.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2019, centered on the massive demonstrations against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) in rural south-central North Dakota in 2016 and 2017. The state alleged 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. The proposed settlement requires Traynor to vacate that judgment and three other orders where he ruled against the United States, including a 120-page ruling from April 2025.

Department of Justice attorney Jonathan Guynn stated that vacating the orders was critical for the federal government. "The downstream consequences of keeping these on the books is troublesome for the United States," Guynn said during the hearing, explaining the DOJ did not want the legal conclusions to influence future lawsuits. He added that if Traynor did not agree to void the rulings, the United States 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 responsibility 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 outweighed this, saving the public the time and money of a prolonged appeals process. "We’re hoping we really don’t need to fight any further," Guynn said.

For Bakken operators and the state, the resolution closes a contentious chapter directly linked to the infrastructure critical for transporting the region's crude oil. The Dakota Access Pipeline remains a vital artery for Bakken production, and the settlement eliminates ongoing legal uncertainty surrounding the state's costs for securing the pipeline's right-of-way during its contested development.