The North Dakota Supreme Court recently delivered a decisive ruling on May 7, emphasizing the importance of the rule of law, U.S. sovereignty, and critical energy infrastructure. The court ruled with a four to one majority against Greenpeace International, preventing them from using a Dutch court to overturn a verdict previously reached by an American jury. This decision marked a momentary win, but the fight against eco-lawfare persists.

The case originated in 2019 when Energy Transfer filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace and other activist organizations. The lawsuit accused them of coordinating a campaign against the Dakota Access Pipeline, which sometimes involved violence. After six years of legal battles and a three-week trial, a jury in North Dakota unanimously found Greenpeace guilty of conspiracy, defamation, and tortious interference, resulting in damages exceeding $666 million. Nearly $130 million of these damages were attributed to Greenpeace International alone. Despite this verdict, Greenpeace International filed a new lawsuit in Amsterdam two weeks before the North Dakota trial concluded, seeking to have the American verdict nullified by a Dutch court under a recent European Union anti-SLAPP directive.

The North Dakota Supreme Court recognized this maneuver as an attempt to circumvent American judiciary processes. Justice Jerod Tufte, speaking for the majority, highlighted that substance matters over labels. Any attempt by a foreign court to invalidate an American jury’s verdict constitutes a collateral attack. Consequently, the court instructed the trial judge to issue a targeted injunction, preventing Greenpeace from pursuing parts of its Dutch lawsuit that conflict with the North Dakota ruling.

The court stated, “Comity expires when the strong public policies of the forum are vitiated by the foreign act.” This translates to foreign courts gaining respect only when deserved. Parties racing to foreign courts in an effort to undermine American judicial outcomes should not expect U.S. courts to defer.

This ruling is specific; it applies to one party in one state. Greenpeace is still allowed to pursue parts of its Dutch action not dependent on the original verdict. The federal courts have not fully addressed whether they can block foreign attacks on American decisions, and opinions vary. Other state courts have yet to tackle the issue.

The European Union’s 2024 anti-SLAPP directive, while intended to protect journalists and dissidents, inadvertently facilitates foreign judges in questioning American verdicts. This poses a risk to U.S. energy companies winning court cases by allowing foreign damage claims for initiating lawsuits.

Activists have found a new strategy: Using foreign courts to make energy projects in the U.S. legally precarious, deterring investments and stifling development. The North Dakota Supreme Court’s serious view of this issue is vital, and other courts should follow. Congressional attention is necessary to prevent American companies from relitigating settled cases internationally. A federal statute affirming the authority of U.S. courts to bar foreign attacks on domestic verdicts would resolve this issue definitively.

The implications are concrete. Reliable energy infrastructure is essential for powering data centers, revitalizing factories, and heating homes. Undermining the certainty of an American verdict increases risks, diminishes investment, and halts infrastructure projects. Greenpeace’s defeat in North Dakota and the subsequent ruling on May 7 are positive developments. However, the nation must ensure these precedents hold, as future cases are undoubtedly looming, and the activists behind the prolonged legal assault on the Dakota Access Pipeline remain undeterred.