North Dakota's Supreme Court ordered a 4-1 antisuit injunction blocking Greenpeace's Amsterdam suit that could have nullified the $345M U.S. defamation verdict.
The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled 4-1 on May 7 to direct a district court to issue a narrowly tailored antisuit injunction barring Greenpeace International from pursuing claims in Amsterdam's District Court that overlap with a $345 million jury verdict entered against the environmental organization in North Dakota [1]. The Dutch proceeding, if allowed to proceed, would require an Amsterdam tribunal to find the North Dakota verdict "manifestly unfounded," the operative standard under the European Union's new anti-SLAPP directive [2]. The high court characterized the Amsterdam filing as a collateral attack on a domestic judgment and ordered the lower court to act accordingly [3].
The underlying case is Energy Transfer LP and Dakota Access LLC v. Greenpeace International, litigated in North Dakota state court. The jury returned its $345 million verdict in the defamation and civil conspiracy action, which arose from Greenpeace's campaign against the Dakota Access Pipeline [1]. Greenpeace International filed its Dutch countersuit in Amsterdam approximately two weeks before the North Dakota trial commenced, a sequence the Supreme Court cited as evidence of forum shopping designed to circumvent an anticipated adverse American judgment [2]. Justice Jerod Tufte authored the majority opinion; Chief Justice Lisa Fair McEvers joined a dissent [3].
The ruling sits at a consequential intersection of international comity doctrine and domestic judgment enforcement. Antisuit injunctions directed at foreign proceedings are disfavored tools, deployed only when a domestic court finds that parallel foreign litigation would frustrate its jurisdiction or undermine a judgment it is charged with protecting [1]. Here, the majority concluded that the EU anti-SLAPP framework created a direct conflict: an Amsterdam ruling that the North Dakota verdict was "manifestly unfounded" would effectively nullify the jury's findings for purposes of any European enforcement proceeding [2]. That reasoning, if adopted more broadly, could supply American courts with a template for shielding domestic verdicts from EU anti-SLAPP challenges in cross-border disputes involving speech and advocacy [3].
The injunction is drawn narrowly and directed at the district court rather than at Greenpeace itself, meaning the trial court must still craft and enter the operative order [1]. Greenpeace International is expected to contest both the scope of the injunction and its enforceability, and separate post-trial motions on damages and fees remain pending in the North Dakota proceeding [2]. Whether Amsterdam's District Court will recognize or comply with the injunction presents a distinct and unresolved question of international procedural law [3].