The North Dakota Supreme Court has delivered a crucial decision affecting the rule of law, U.S. sovereignty, and the nation’s energy infrastructure. On May 7, the court decided in a four-to-one ruling that Greenpeace International cannot use a Dutch court to overturn a decision made by an American jury.
In 2019, Energy Transfer filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace and other activist organizations, alleging a coordinated and sometimes violent campaign against the Dakota Access Pipeline. After prolonged litigation and a three-week trial, a unanimous jury from North Dakota found Greenpeace liable for conspiracy, defamation, and tortious interference, awarding damages exceeding $666 million. Greenpeace International alone faced more than $130 million in damages.
Despite the jury’s clear decision, Greenpeace International filed a lawsuit in Amsterdam before the North Dakota trial began. The aim was to use a Dutch court to declare the American verdict as unfounded under a new EU anti-SLAPP directive, then nullify the decision and seize Energy Transfer’s assets globally. The North Dakota Supreme Court recognized this strategy as an end-run around the U.S. legal system.
Justice Jerod Tufte who authored the majority opinion emphasized that substance matters more than labels. A claim requiring a foreign court to invalidate an American jury’s decision is a collateral attack. The court ordered an injunction to prevent Greenpeace from pursuing any of its Dutch claims that would undermine the verdict reached in North Dakota.
Foreign courts get respect when they earn it. A party that races to Amsterdam to undermine an American verdict cannot expect deference from American courts.
This decision only applies narrowly to this case, but it highlights a broader challenge. Greenpeace may continue certain aspects of its Dutch action. This situation exposes a gap in how American and international courts manage such claims. Federal courts and other state supreme courts could face similar challenges in the future.
The EU’s anti-SLAPP directive, intended to protect free speech, might now be used against American businesses, particularly in the energy sector. The directive allows foreign courts to question American verdicts, threatening energy projects within the U.S.
The broader concern is a tactical use of international legal leverage against American infrastructure. This threatens projects by imposing legal uncertainty, increasing risk premiums, and discouraging capital investment.
The North Dakota decision symbolizes a broader debate. A federal statute to block foreign attacks on U.S. judgments would clarify and protect domestic legal outcomes. This is essential for maintaining economic and energy security. American companies should not face redundant legal battles abroad after prevailing in U.S. courts.
Greenpeace has lost in North Dakota and again on May 7. This is significant. But vigilance is needed to ensure these outcomes remain definitive, as future legal challenges are likely being planned. The commitment to energy development requires steadfast support from U.S. courts and possibly legislative action from Congress.
Leave a Reply