North Dakota Supreme Court Blocks Greenpeace Legal Maneuver

The North Dakota Supreme Court recently delivered a significant ruling that reinforces the rule of law, U.S. sovereignty, and the nation’s energy infrastructure. On May 7, the court decided with a 4-1 vote that Greenpeace International cannot employ a Dutch court to overturn a decision made by an American jury. This verdict is seen as a victory, but the battle against eco-lawfare continues.

The Legal Battle

The legal conflict began in 2019 when Energy Transfer filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace and other activist groups. These groups had engaged in a prolonged and sometimes violent campaign against the Dakota Access Pipeline. After years of litigation and a three-week trial, a North Dakota jury found Greenpeace guilty of conspiracy, defamation, defamation per se, and tortious interference. The jury awarded damages exceeding $666 million, with over $130 million attributed to Greenpeace International.

The Attempt to Overturn the Verdict

Despite the jury’s decision, this was not the end of the matter. Greenpeace International launched a new lawsuit in Amsterdam two weeks prior to the North Dakota trial. Their goal was to have a Dutch court declare the North Dakota case as “manifestly unfounded and abusive” under a new EU anti-SLAPP directive. This would potentially nullify the jury’s decision and allow them to seize Energy Transfer’s assets worldwide. The attempt was seen as an end-run around the U.S. judiciary.

The North Dakota Supreme Court’s Decision

The North Dakota Supreme Court recognized this maneuver. Justice Jerod Tufte, representing the majority, affirmed the importance of substance over labels. The court ordered the trial judge to block Greenpeace from pursuing parts of its Dutch lawsuit that challenged the North Dakota verdict. The court emphasized that foreign courts only receive respect when warranted.

The Larger Legal Context

This ruling applies directly to one party in one state. However, Greenpeace can still pursue aspects of their Dutch legal action that do not target the North Dakota decision. There is no federal consensus on whether American courts can block similar foreign challenges. The situation is further complicated as other state supreme courts have yet to address this issue.

Potential Future Challenges

The European Union’s 2024 anti-SLAPP directive aims to protect journalists and dissidents, but it is also used against American energy companies. This directive allows foreign judges to reassess American court decisions and permits damages claims for filing lawsuits. This structure facilitates the kind of tactic Greenpeace employed.

Impact on Energy Infrastructure

The strategy by activist groups raises the legal risk for developing American energy infrastructure. If the validity of American verdicts is questioned, investment becomes less certain. This scenario leads to increased risk, reduced capital availability, and stalled projects.

The Role of Congress

To address this challenge, Congress should consider legislation that affirms American courts’ ability to block foreign attacks on domestic judgments. Ensuring U.S. companies can operate with confidence under American law is crucial for maintaining the nation’s energy infrastructure.

Greenpeace’s defeat in North Dakota is a positive development. But the fight continues, and vigilance remains essential to protect American interests.