North Dakota's Supreme Court, in a 4-1 ruling, barred Greenpeace International from pursuing Dutch anti-SLAPP claims that would require relitigating the $345 million pipeline verdict.
The North Dakota Supreme Court, in a 4-1 decision issued May 7, ordered a lower court to enter a narrowly tailored international antisuit injunction barring Greenpeace International from pursuing claims in an Amsterdam court that would require a Dutch tribunal to find the North Dakota jury verdict "manifestly unfounded" [1]. The ruling marks the first time a U.S. state supreme court has deployed an antisuit injunction specifically to protect a domestic jury verdict from a foreign anti-SLAPP proceeding [2]. Greenpeace stated it would continue litigating other grounds in the Dutch court not covered by the injunction [3].
The case arises from Energy Transfer's defamation suit against Greenpeace International over the organization's statements and conduct in connection with the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. A North Dakota jury returned a verdict of approximately $345 million against Greenpeace [1]. After that verdict, Greenpeace International filed a countersuit in Amsterdam under Dutch and EU anti-SLAPP frameworks, a move Energy Transfer characterized as a collateral attack on the jury's findings [2]. Energy Transfer, represented by Gibson Dunn, moved for the antisuit injunction in the trial court, which the North Dakota Supreme Court ultimately directed the lower court to issue [3].
Justice Jerod Tufte authored the majority opinion, joined by three colleagues, finding that Greenpeace's Amsterdam action was a direct challenge to North Dakota's judicial sovereignty and that the Dutch proceeding's threshold inquiry into whether the verdict was "manifestly unfounded" could effectively nullify the jury's work [1]. The lone dissent came from Justice Fair McEvers, who raised concerns about the scope of the order and international comity principles [3]. The majority distinguished its holding by stressing the injunction's narrow scope, barring only the specific claims that require the Dutch court to relitigate the merits of the North Dakota verdict, while leaving other portions of the Amsterdam proceeding intact [2].
The ruling carries significant strategic weight beyond this dispute. It establishes that state courts possess, and will exercise, equitable power to issue international antisuit injunctions when foreign litigation constitutes a collateral attack on a domestic verdict, a proposition that had not been tested at the state supreme court level in this context [2]. For multinational defendants facing U.S. jury verdicts, the decision signals that filing anti-SLAPP or similar proceedings abroad after a domestic loss may trigger immediate injunctive exposure in the originating U.S. court [2].
Energy Transfer's counsel is expected to pursue enforcement of the injunction at the trial court level, and Greenpeace has indicated it intends to press forward in Amsterdam on the claims the injunction does not reach [3]. Whether Dutch courts will recognize or resist the North Dakota order will test the limits of transatlantic judicial comity and could draw intervention from EU regulatory bodies monitoring the bloc's anti-SLAPP directive's extraterritorial application [2].