admin
The North Dakota Supreme Court issued a clear message this week: U.S. jury verdicts are not open to being undone in foreign courts. In a 4–1 decision, the court told the lower court to block parts of Greenpeace International’s lawsuit in the Netherlands that would directly contradict the Morton County jury’s findings in the Dakota Access Pipeline case. This is about protecting American courts, American juries, and American energy projects from being undercut by legal maneuvers overseas.
What the North Dakota Supreme Court did
Justice Jerod Tufte wrote the majority opinion and the court granted Energy Transfer’s request for supervisory review. Two justices recused themselves, and the panel included two district judges sitting with the majority. The court said the district judge had erred when he refused to stop Greenpeace from asking the Dutch court to declare the North Dakota lawsuit “manifestly unfounded and abusive.” The high court told the lower court to enter a narrowly tailored antisuit injunction that bars any foreign claim that would require the Netherlands court to undo the jury’s findings.
Why this ruling matters
This is not just a fight between a pipeline company and an environmental group. It is a test of whether American legal outcomes can be attacked abroad as an end‑run around our courts. Energy Transfer’s lawyers said the move protected the authority of North Dakota courts and the jury’s verdict. That matters for energy infrastructure. If foreign courts could erase U.S. juries’ findings when politically motivated groups don’t like the result, companies and projects would face constant legal sabotage. In plain terms: you don’t get to lose in an American courtroom and then try for a do‑over in Amsterdam.
A narrow win, not a blank check
The court was careful. The injunction it ordered is narrow. It only stops Greenpeace from asking the Dutch court to reach conclusions that would directly conflict with what the Morton County jury already decided. Greenpeace still can press other claims in the Netherlands that don’t relitigate the same facts. The case also sits against the backdrop of new EU anti‑SLAPP rules. Those rules aim to protect free speech and public debate, but they were not meant to become a tool for bypassing foreign verdicts.
What’s next and why to watch this fight
Judge James D. Gion will now draft the specific injunction language the supreme court directed. Greenpeace says it will press on in the Netherlands and could seek further steps here. The decision may be appealed or met with a petition for rehearing. Either way, the message from North Dakota is plain: American courts and American juries count. For anyone trying to use foreign courts to undo U.S. rulings, expect pushback. Energy policy and legal sovereignty just scored a win — and some activists should learn that flavors other than defeat taste sour.
