The North Dakota Ruling on Greenpeace: Implications for U.S. Energy Infrastructure

North Dakota Supreme Court Decision

The North Dakota Supreme Court has made a definitive ruling affecting U.S. sovereignty and energy infrastructure. On May 7, the court decided in a 4-1 vote against Greenpeace International’s efforts to use a Dutch court to overturn an American jury’s unanimous decision. This verdict represents a significant victory; however, the challenge against eco-lawfare remains ongoing.

The 2019 Case: Energy Transfer vs. Greenpeace

In 2019, Energy Transfer filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace and other activists over their organized opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. This opposition sometimes turned violent. After a lengthy legal battle lasting six years and a three-week trial, a jury in North Dakota found Greenpeace guilty of conspiracy, defamation, defamation per se, and tortious interference. The jury awarded damages exceeding $666 million, with $130 million attributed to Greenpeace International. Despite this clear verdict, issues have arisen.

Greenpeace International’s Legal Maneuver in Amsterdam

Two weeks before the trial in North Dakota began, Greenpeace International initiated a lawsuit in Amsterdam. They aimed to have the North Dakota case declared “manifestly unfounded and abusive” under a new EU anti-SLAPP directive. They wanted this foreign declaration to invalidate the verdict and seize Energy Transfer’s assets. This attempt was a strategic move to circumvent the American judiciary, camouflaged in European legal terminology.

North Dakota Supreme Court’s Stance

The North Dakota Supreme Court recognized Greenpeace’s effort as an improper challenge. Justice Jerod Tufte, expressing a majority opinion, emphasized the importance of substance over labels. He highlighted that asking a foreign court to invalidate an American jury’s decision is an inappropriate challenge, regardless of the terminology used.

Limits and Implications of the Ruling

The court’s decision led to a specific injunction, preventing Greenpeace from pursuing parts of its Dutch lawsuit related to the North Dakota verdict. However, Greenpeace can continue other aspects of its Dutch legal action. Federal courts have not yet expressed opinions on whether American courts can block foreign challenges to U.S. judgements. There is inconsistency among federal circuits regarding the weight of international comity against such injunctions. It remains uncertain how other state supreme courts will address this issue.

Challenges Ahead for Energy Companies

Activists may persist with similar strategies, seeking sympathetic foreign jurisdictions. The European Union’s 2024 anti-SLAPP directive, initially intended to protect free speech, is now targeting American energy firms that win legal battles. This directive allows foreign judges to question the validity of U.S. court verdicts. Article 17 even permits damages claims merely for filing a lawsuit.

Need for Legislative Action

Activists use these legal tactics to hinder U.S. energy infrastructure development. Their objective is to make it legally risky to pursue such projects, thereby driving capital away. The effectiveness of this strategy depends on how seriously U.S. courts respond. While the North Dakota Supreme Court took decisive action, other courts must follow suit. Congress should also be proactive. A federal law clarifying American courts’ authority to prevent foreign attacks on domestic judgments is essential.

Conclusion: Moving Forward

The stakes are significant. Reliable energy infrastructure, crucial for data centers, factories, and homes, relies on legal certainty. Understanding the importance of an American verdict is vital for reducing risks and encouraging investment. Greenpeace’s defeat in North Dakota is a positive sign. However, vigilance is necessary to ensure such legal challenges do not undermine U.S. energy infrastructure.