Greenpeace International (GPI) suffered a setback in its attempt to sidestep a $345 million judgment when the North Dakota Supreme Court instructed the district court to issue an antisuit injunction against a parallel lawsuit pending in a Dutch court.

The dispute began when the pipeline company Energy Transfer initiated a defamation lawsuit, accusing GPI of inciting violent protests through a campaign of misinformation at the Dakota Access project in 2016 and 2017. After a three-week trial in February and March 2025, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for the plaintiffs, finding GPI liable for conspiracy, defamation, and tortious interference. District Court Judge James D. Gion finalized the award in February 2026.

Just two weeks before the jury trial began, GPI became the first party to invoke a new European Union directive when it asked the Amsterdam District Court to declare the U.S. lawsuit a SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation). GPI alleges that the energy company used the courts to intimidate and stifle participation in environmental protests and is seeking costs and damages arising from the North Dakota case in Dutch court.

In July 2025, Energy Transfer filed an emergency motion for an antisuit injunction to block GPI’s countersuit in the Netherlands, arguing it was an attempt to void the jury’s verdict and would undermine North Dakota’s judicial sovereignty. In September 2025, the district court denied the motion; the state supreme court took up Energy Transfer’s appeal and heard oral arguments in December 2025.

On May 7, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled 4–1 in Energy Transfer’s favor and directed the district court to issue a narrowly tailored antisuit injunction barring GPI from pursuing claims in Dutch court asserting that the North Dakota case lacked foundation. In the opinion by Justice Jerod Tufte, the court noted that the claims GPI put forward in its countersuit are an “attack on the jury’s verdict and seek a remedy that would erase any final award damages.” Noting that the district court erred in its rejection of the motion for an antisuit injunction, the majority opinion stated: “The district court has the duty and the authority to protect the integrity of its own proceedings.”

Trey Cox, partner at Gibson Dunn and lead counsel for Energy Transfer, offered an official statement on the court’s decision: “Energy Transfer appreciates the North Dakota Supreme Court’s careful decision. We have always believed that North Dakota’s courts, laws, and juries cannot be collaterally attacked in a foreign forum. Today’s ruling protects the authority of the North Dakota judicial system and the jury’s unanimous verdict from an improper end-run abroad. Energy Transfer looks forward to bringing this legal process to a close and holding Greenpeace accountable for the harm it caused.”

The court was clear that GPI can pursue litigation related to matters “the North Dakota proceedings did not adjudicate,” such as Energy Transfer’s original federal lawsuit that was dismissed and alleged out-of-court defamatory statements. In a press release, GPI described the “narrowly tailored” antisuit injunction as a positive outcome that would allow the organization to proceed with its anti-SLAPP case in the Amsterdam District Court.

In an initial response to the ruling, Daniel Simons, Senior Legal Counsel with GPI, stated: “Today’s North Dakota Supreme Court opinion does not enable Energy Transfer to escape accountability under Dutch and EU law for their unlawful actions against Greenpeace International. The legal fight to remedy the harms suffered as a result of Energy Transfer’s intimidation tactics continues.”

GPI notes that it remains free to argue that Energy Transfer “acted abusively” in the district court case that it won. Justice Tufte, however, was skeptical of GPI’s declaration during oral arguments that the SLAPP claim before the Dutch court does not need to contradict the jury’s verdict: “We take GPI’s Dutch complaint as it is pleaded, and the Amsterdam filing seeks precisely that declaration.” The state supreme court stated that an emergency antisuit injunction was necessary: the case before the Dutch court would adjudicate the same underlying facts and legal questions that were resolved after a three-week jury trial in North Dakota.

Craig Stevens, spokesman for the GAIN coalition and former senior advisor to U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, calls attention to the forum shopping GPI is using in an attempt to erase the North Dakota judgment. “This decision reinforces that judgments reached in U.S. courts must be respected and cannot be challenged through parallel cases overseas. By drawing that line, it strengthens confidence in our legal system and protects the ability to build and operate critical infrastructure. This is a win for U.S. energy security, ensuring projects like the Dakota Access Pipeline can continue to support millions of Americans without being undermined by foreign interference.”

One reason why the North Dakota district court denied Energy Transfer’s motion was because case law cautions that foreign antisuit injunctions should be granted only in the “rarest of cases,” after weighing domestic judicial interests against concerns of international comity. The state supreme court acknowledged the importance of comity, the legal doctrine that calls on the courts of one jurisdiction to recognize the judicial decisions of another as a matter of courtesy, on which GPI’s countersuit hinges.

However, the justices listed several reasons why comity does not apply in this case. They reject that Energy Transfer’s request threatens international comity; principles of comity tend to favor the first-moving court; and comity should not be extended when a foreign action undermines the principle of comity itself. Justice Tufte reasoned: “GPI’s decision to sue in the Netherlands on the eve of a North Dakota trial, seeking to declare the North Dakota case ‘manifestly unfounded,’ does not reflect the mutual respect between judicial systems that comity exists to promote.”

GPI was given fourteen days to petition the North Dakota Supreme Court for a rehearing. Its district court motion for a new trial is awaiting a ruling from Judge Gion. The Amsterdam District Court has said it would rule on Energy Transfer’s request to dismiss or stay GPI’s lawsuit by June 3, 2026.