Brad Hubbard, an attorney representing Dakota Access Pipeline developer Energy Transfer, asks the North Dakota Supreme Court to halt an overseas lawsuit brought against it by Greenpeace International. (Photo by Kyle Martin/North Dakota Monitor)
BISMARCK, N.D. (North Dakota Monitor) – The North Dakota Supreme Court has instructed a district court judge to stop an overseas free speech lawsuit against the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
The Amsterdam-based organization Greenpeace International filed suit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands in response to the lawsuit the environmental group faces in North Dakota. Energy Transfer accuses Greenpeace of International and two other Greenpeace affiliate organizations of engaging in conspiracy, defamation and other crimes to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline pipeline from being built. A Morton County jury last spring sided with most of Energy Transfer’s claims.
Greenpeace International in early 2025 counter-sued Energy Transfer under a relatively new European Union law that protects those sued in retaliation for protest speech. The environmental group claims Energy Transfer has weaponized the legal system against it to punish Greenpeace for supporting the Dakota Access Pipeline protests.
Energy Transfer, meanwhile, alleges that Greenpeace International is only bringing the Dutch case to overturn the unfavorable verdict it received in North Dakota.
Energy Transfer asked Southwest Judicial District Judge James Gion last year to order that Greenpeace International refrain from pursuing the overseas lawsuit.
Gion denied the request, finding that Greenpeace International was not attempting to relitigate the North Dakota case because different matters are at issue in the Dutch suit. Gion also noted that the North Dakota case will likely wrap up before the Netherlands suit gets far enough along to interfere with it.
Energy Transfer appealed the decision to the North Dakota Supreme Court in September.
The high court on Thursday ruled 4-1 to overturn Gion’s decision, with Chief Justice Lisa Fair McEvers being the lone dissenting justice. District court judges Stephanie Hayden and James Shockman sat in on the case in place of justices Mark Friese and Douglas Bahr, who recused.
The four justices in the majority opinion agreed with Energy Transfer’s claim that Greenpeace International’s case in the Netherlands threatened to undermine the Morton County jury’s verdict. They directed Gion to enter an order halting the Dutch suit.
Greenpeace International wants the Amsterdam court to find that Energy Transfer’s suit is “manifestly unfounded and abusive,” Justice Jerod Tufte wrote in the majority opinion. He said this would require the court to find that Greenpeace International “did not engage in unlawful conduct, did not cause Energy Transfer’s losses, and did not act with malice.”
This goes against the Morton County jury’s decision, Tufte wrote.
He called the Dutch lawsuit “an attack on a fundamental policy of this state.”
He pointed to the fact that Greenpeace filed the Dutch suit about two weeks before its trial in Gion’s court started, he noted. This could have been a deliberate attempt to circumvent the North Dakota case, Tufte said.
“The only apparent purpose of filing a duplicative foreign action on the eve of trial is to create a vehicle for collaterally attacking the anticipated verdict,” he wrote.
Greenpeace International Senior Legal Counsel Daniel Simons in a Thursday statement said the organization is still digesting the North Dakota Supreme Court’s decision. Simons noted the order doesn’t prevent Greenpeace International from pursuing other legal action in the Netherlands related to the North Dakota case.
“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.,” he said in the statement.
Trey Cox, the lead attorney representing Energy Transfer in its lawsuit against Greenpeace, applauded the ruling. In a Thursday statement, he said the high court’s decision “protects the authority of the North Dakota judicial system and the jury’s unanimous verdict from an improper end-run abroad.”
Fair McEvers in her dissent stated that she would deny Energy Transfer’s request, writing that there wasn’t enough evidence Gion acted in error.
She agreed with Gion that the Dutch case does not appear to be rehashing the same issues heard in his court.
“While there are some similarities, the types of actions differ,” she wrote.
Fair McEvers was also skeptical that the overseas suit threatened the integrity of the North Dakota case.
She noted that Greenpeace International submitted testimony from a Dutch law expert who indicated that even if Greenpeace International receives a favorable ruling in Amsterdam, it wouldn’t necessarily undermine the jury’s verdict.
Fair McEvers pushed back against the majority’s assertion that the timing of Greenpeace International’s Dutch suit was dubious.
While she agreed that the North Dakota judiciary has an interest in protecting its courts, she did not think the circumstances surrounding the Dutch case justified overruling Gion’s decision.
Both the majority opinion and Fair McEvers’ dissent acknowledge that the issues presented by Energy Transfer’s appeal are new to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
They also noted that there aren’t straightforward rules for how judges ought to decide when it’s appropriate to issue orders stopping another lawsuit.
In addition to Greenpeace International, Energy Transfer’s North Dakota lawsuit is also against two other Greenpeace organizations: Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund. Those two aren’t part of the Dutch lawsuit.
Greenpeace International’s suit is still in its early stages. An Amsterdam court in mid-April held a hearing on claims brought by Energy Transfer asking for the case to be dismissed.
The more than three-week trial in Gion’s court last year featured dozens of witnesses, including current and former Greenpeace employees, Indigenous activists, Energy Transfer representatives and law enforcement.
The Morton County jury ultimately directed Greenpeace to pay Energy Transfer $667 million. Gion later reduced that amount, and in March finalized an order for a $345 million judgment against Greenpeace. The three Greenpeace defendants have since filed a motion requesting a new trial.
Comments