North Dakota Supreme Court Bars Greenpeace From Dutch Lawsuit Against Energy Transfer

The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled this week that Greenpeace International cannot continue most of its lawsuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands. In a 4-1 decision, the court sided with the pipeline company, which had argued the overseas case was an attempt to undermine a North Dakota jury verdict.

The dispute traces back to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund, accusing the groups of organizing illegal efforts to halt construction and damage the company's reputation.

A Morton County jury sided with Energy Transfer on most claims last year. The panel initially awarded the company $667 million, later reduced by a judge to $345 million. Before that trial began, Greenpeace International filed suit in Amsterdam under a European Union law intended to shield protest groups from certain lawsuits.

Energy Transfer contended the Dutch action sought to avoid accountability in North Dakota. The state Supreme Court agreed the Netherlands case directly conflicted with the jury's findings. The majority opinion stated that Greenpeace International sought a ruling declaring Energy Transfer's lawsuit "manifestly unfounded and abusive," which would require the Dutch court to conclude the group did not engage in unlawful conduct, did not cause losses or act with malice.

Such a finding would clash with the North Dakota jury verdict, the opinion said. The court also noted the Dutch suit was filed shortly before the North Dakota trial, calling it an attempt to create a vehicle for collaterally attacking the anticipated verdict.

The ruling overturns a lower court's decision that had allowed the Amsterdam case to proceed. One justice dissented, arguing there was insufficient evidence of legal error and that the Dutch case involved different types of actions despite some similarities.

Energy Transfer welcomed the outcome. "We have always believed that North Dakota’s courts, laws, and juries cannot be collaterally attacked in a foreign forum," the company's lead counsel said in a statement. A spokesman for the GAIN coalition added that the decision reinforces respect for U.S. court judgments and protects critical infrastructure from foreign interference.

Greenpeace International signaled it would continue pursuing legal action in the Netherlands. "This ruling does not enable Energy Transfer to escape accountability under Dutch and EU law for their back-to-back abusive court proceedings in the U.S.," the group's senior legal counsel said.

The Greenpeace organizations involved in the North Dakota case have also requested a new trial.

Background on the Dakota Access Pipeline Dispute Protests against the pipeline drew international attention several years ago. Activists contended the project threatened water supplies and violated tribal sovereignty. Energy Transfer maintained the pipeline was built safely and with proper approvals.

The company's subsequent lawsuit focused on what it described as disruptive and unlawful protest tactics. The jury found in its favor on the majority of claims after hearing evidence of the financial harm caused. Greenpeace International turned to the Dutch courts under EU provisions designed to counter strategic lawsuits against public participation.

The North Dakota ruling now limits the group's ability to seek such relief abroad while the domestic judgment stands.

It highlighted the timing of the Amsterdam filing as evidence of intent to interfere with the North Dakota proceedings. Legal observers following the case noted the decision strengthens the finality of domestic jury verdicts against parallel foreign actions.

The ruling could influence how similar cross-border disputes are handled in the future. Despite the setback, Greenpeace International maintains its position that the original North Dakota lawsuit was abusive. The group has not indicated whether it will appeal the state Supreme Court decision.

>"Energy Transfer appreciates the North Dakota Supreme Court’s careful decision.