The question of which judicial system holds authority over disputes on United States soil—American or foreign courts—has become a critical issue in the legal conflict between Greenpeace and Energy Transfer, an American energy infrastructure company. This case, stemming from protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) in North Dakota, raises important questions about the application of domestic law, the legitimacy of foreign judicial intervention, and the misuse of so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs)—lawsuits alleged to be meritless and intended to silence public criticism.

In March 2025, a North Dakota state district court jury awarded Energy Transfer approximately $667 million in damages, finding three Greenpeace entities – Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International, and Greenpeace Fund – liable for defamation, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, nuisance, trespass to land and chattel, conversion, and aiding and abetting related to its protest activities. Post-trial motions and a potential appeal remain pending.

Prior to the 2025 trial, Greenpeace International sent a July 23, 2024, notice invoking the April 11, 2024, EU Anti-SLAPP Directive, threatening to pursue the case in the Netherlands unless Energy Transfer withdrew its American lawsuit. When Energy Transfer declined, Greenpeace filed suit in the Netherlands in February 2025, citing the same directive.

Greenpeace’s Netherlands action is problematic on several fronts. First, branding Energy Transfer’s successful lawsuit as a SLAPP is untenable: the North Dakota jury’s well-supported verdict, resulting in a substantial judgment, confirms the legal merit of the case and invalidates Greenpeace’s claims of meritlessness. Second, Greenpeace’s assertion of being silenced is not supported—numerous public statements (press releases, open letters, and media postings) remained active throughout the dispute. Third, and most fundamentally, a Dutch court cannot displace a lawful jury verdict in the United States. U.S. companies operating within U.S. borders are not subject to EU directives or foreign judicial rulings, rendering Greenpeace’s strategy ineffective in overriding U.S. legal outcomes. Whatever the outcome in the Netherlands, it cannot overturn the North Dakota judgment.

At trial, the jury found that Greenpeace disseminated false statements, including assertions that the Dakota Access Pipeline crossed Standing Rock Sioux tribal land and that DAPL personnel desecrated sacred burial grounds—claims that were demonstrably untrue. These defamatory assertions damaged Energy Transfer’s reputation and prompted several financial institutions to withdraw support for the project. Furthermore, evidence presented at trial revealed Greenpeace’s material support for protest activities that escalated into violence, including funding for professional protest trainers, tools, propane, tents, and “lockboxes” designed to obstruct construction equipment. These actions fueled months of unrest that resulted in injuries to law enforcement, arson, vandalism, and escalating costs for Energy Transfer through heightened security, equipment repairs, and project delays.

While Greenpeace contended its actions were protected under the First Amendment, the jury concluded that knowingly spreading falsehoods with intent to damage reputations can constitute defamation, and that aiding and abetting unlawful conduct and related torts are not protected under U.S. law. These findings of fact were reached through the appropriate American legal process.

Despite this, Greenpeace continues its Dutch litigation, engaging in the same practice of forum-shopping that the organization frequently accuses corporations of employing. While Greenpeace has every right to pursue appeals in U.S. courts, resorting to parallel foreign proceedings suggests a strategic effort to divert attention from the North Dakota outcome. Such tactics risk misusing judicial resources and undermining the credibility of Greenpeace’s broader advocacy efforts, especially as substantial financial obligations from the $667 million judgment loom.

At the heart of this dispute is a broader principle: respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of American courts, and the need to prevent legal outcomes from being subject to political gamesmanship across international borders.

Opinion Disclaimer: The Opinions and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of The National Law Review.