American Legal Sovereignty Threatened by Greenpeace’s Retaliatory EU Lawsuit

Greenpeace protesters prepare to unfold a banner from atop a construction crane in Washington, on Jan. 25, 2017. Eva Hambach/AFP via Getty Images

Commentary

The strength of the U.S. civil legal system rests on a simple principle: Those who break the law on U.S. soil answer to U.S. plaintiffs in U.S. courts. Our constitutional order depends on juries empowered to weigh evidence, judges and plaintiffs entrusted to enforce verdicts, and a system insulated from foreign interference. However, that foundation is now being tested by an activist organization determined to escape domestic accountability for domestic acts by turning abroad and using a foreign country’s laws and courts to take another bite at the legal apple, so to speak.

In March 2025, a North Dakota jury delivered a decisive $670 million verdict against Greenpeace and its affiliates, finding them liable for extreme torts against Energy Transfer LP in the form of defamation, trespass, and conspiracy. The jurors rejected the claim that the Greenpeace activity—supporting violent demonstrations that disrupted construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017—was protected speech, finding instead that Greenpeace orchestrated a campaign of unlawful disruption and reputational harm against Energy Transfer.

While the award has since been reduced to $345 million, the fact remains: The jury verdict was well-founded.

During the trial, Energy Transfer’s lawyers presented compelling evidence showing Greenpeace’s role in orchestrating the protests. The group spent $55,000 training activists in direct action and violent protest tactics; supplied them with power tools, tents, propane, cold-weather gear, and lockboxes to chain themselves to heavy equipment; and encouraged confrontations with law enforcement. Meanwhile, its former executive director was found to have used an official Greenpeace email account to raise another $90,000 to fuel the effort.

On top of that, the jury found that Greenpeace knowingly defamed Energy Transfer by falsely accusing the company of knowingly desecrating Native American burial grounds during pipeline construction. In reality, Energy Transfer took extensive precautions to protect cultural and historical sites. Such fabricated and highly incendiary claims were found to have inflicted serious harm on Energy Transfer’s public reputation and its standing with financial institutions.

But rather than accept the ruling of the court, Greenpeace is attempting an end-run around it. Just weeks before the trial concluded, Greenpeace and Greenpeace International filed a retaliatory lawsuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, invoking the European Union’s new anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) directive. Importantly, the EU directive allows EU-based entities, such as Greenpeace International, to pursue damages against non-EU actors for cases originally brought outside the EU—expanding its reach far beyond Europe’s borders.

The Dutch lawsuit marks the first test of the new EU directive, and it appears that Greenpeace’s goal is to reframe its adjudicated misconduct as “free speech”; sprinkle in its own claims, which could and should have been raised and litigated in the North Dakota forum; and ask a foreign tribunal to essentially relitigate a case in which a North Dakota court had already ruled following a full jury trial. Such tactics are abusive, costly, extra-jurisdictional, and very concerning for any company dealing with EU-based entities, as no U.S. company could anticipate being hauled into an EU Court by or through its activities in the United States.

Fortunately, at least for now, Recital 29 of the directive applies only to untruthful allegations, meaning that if the claims in the original suit are proven true, anti-SLAPP protections do not apply. On that basis alone, the Dutch court should dismiss the case.

The directive was meant to protect European journalists, activists, and civic participants from frivolous lawsuits meant to silence dissent for activities on European soil. As determined in court by a jury, under the guidance of an experienced judge, the Energy Transfer/Greenpeace case was not frivolous. Nothing Greenpeace could say in a Dutch court could undermine the “truth” as found by a North Dakota jury, under state law.

However, the danger of allowing Greenpeace to relitigate facts and activities already determined by a lawful proceeding in the United States risks setting a dangerous precedent. If a foreign-based entity can lose in the United States and live to fight the same fight overseas, it creates a real incentive for bad actors to engage in tortious activities in the United States while discouraging what might be perceived as fruitless litigation. What company can afford to pay the price of a never-ending battle overseas?

The Greenpeace tactic of using the EU directive as a counterweight also raises jurisdictional questions concerning the liability of a U.S. company under foreign laws when it has done nothing to justify being hauled into a foreign court. Indeed, allowing a foreign tribunal without jurisdiction over a U.S.-based company to require even a response to an EU action would open the floodgates to duplicative litigation and erode the confidence U.S. companies should have in U.S. systems of civil justice.

Energy Transfer recently appealed a decision by the North Dakota Southwest Judicial District Court and Judge James Gion—who is overseeing the proceedings—to not enjoin Greenpeace from moving the EU lawsuit forward. The jury got the case right, and the judge got his denial of an injunction wrong. In the United States, courts should do all they can to respect and protect jury verdicts and those who pay the price to bring justice to those who violate U.S. laws, even if they are foreign-based.

The stakes of the anti-SLAPP suit are too high to simply hope for the right outcome.

We should not forget that Greenpeace is not simply testing the boundaries of free expression—it is testing whether U.S. legal sovereignty and the rule of law still mean something. The answer must be a firm and resounding yes.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.