The North Dakota Supreme Court has made a significant ruling in favor of U.S. sovereignty and energy infrastructure. On May 7, the court decided, in a four-to-one vote, that Greenpeace International could not use a Dutch court to overturn a decision already reached by an American jury. This is a positive outcome, though the battle against environmental lawfare is ongoing.
The legal conflict began in 2019 when Energy Transfer filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace and other activist groups. They were accused of leading a coordinated and sometimes violent campaign against the Dakota Access Pipeline. After extensive litigation and a trial, a jury in North Dakota found Greenpeace guilty of conspiracy, defamation, and tortious interference. Damages amounted to over $666 million, with over $130 million assigned to Greenpeace International.
The case seemed settled, but Greenpeace International filed a new lawsuit in Amsterdam two weeks before the North Dakota trial started. Their aim was to have a Dutch court label the North Dakota case as ‘manifestly unfounded and abusive’ under a European Union directive. They intended to use this ruling to nullify the American jury’s decision and seize Energy Transfer’s assets globally.
The North Dakota Supreme Court, led by Justice Jerod Tufte, recognized this tactic as an attempted end-run around American judicial processes. The court emphasized that substance, not labels, determine the legitimacy of a claim. It issued an injunction preventing Greenpeace from using the Dutch lawsuit to challenge the American verdict.
Comity expires when the strong public policies of the forum are vitiated by the foreign act.
This ruling asserts that foreign courts should be respected only when they earn it. Greenpeace’s action of undermining the U.S. court’s decision right before the trial cannot be justified.
Despite the ruling, it is limited in scope. The injunction applies only to this particular case in North Dakota. Greenpeace can still pursue parts of its Dutch lawsuit that do not challenge the U.S. verdict. American federal courts and other state supreme courts have not yet fully addressed whether they can completely block foreign attacks on American rulings. The European Union’s 2024 anti-SLAPP directive, designed to protect speech, is increasingly used against American energy companies.
American courts need to take serious action to prevent foreign jurisdictions from undermining U.S. legal processes. A federal statute clarifying the authority of American courts to halt foreign collateral attacks on domestic judgments would solidify this position. Energy security in the U.S. is at stake, affecting everything from data centers to factories and residential heating.
Greenpeace suffered legal setbacks in North Dakota, but the fight isn’t over. Other cases are likely being prepared, as activists continue to challenge U.S. energy projects. Protecting U.S. energy infrastructure requires ongoing vigilance from courts and lawmakers alike.
Jason Isaac is CEO of the American Energy Institute. © 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.