The Supreme Court of North Dakota has directed a trial court to enter a narrow antisuit injunction against Greenpeace International Thursday morning, barring it from proceeding with its action against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands.
Dallas-based midstream Energy Transfer was awarded more than $660 million in damages in its suit against Greenpeace in March 2025.
The international organization for climate activism based in the Netherlands was accused of defamation associated with protests in 2016 and 2017 against the construction of Energy Transfers Dakota Access Pipeline. Energy Transfer had sought $350 million in damages tied to a five-month delay in the pipeline’s completion.
Prior to the three-week jury trial, Greenpeace International filed an anti-SLAPP suit in the Dutch court against Energy Transfer.
Energy Transfer asked the court in July 2025 to prohibit Greenpeace International from proceeding with the Dutch action. The court denied the motion a few months later in September.
However, the North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court abused its discretion by misapplying the law.
“First, the court applied the substantial similarity inquiry by looking to the labels GPI attached to its Dutch claims rather than to the elements those claims require GPI to prove,” Justice Jerod Tufte wrote in the majority opinion. “Second, the court concluded ‘comity does not apply’ because GPI’s SLAPP and defamation claims are not pending in North Dakota, then simply noted that the Eighth Circuit presumes a threat to international comity.”
The high court remanded the case with directions for the district court to enter a narrowly tailored antisuit injunction.
“We do not foreclose all related litigation by GPI in the Netherlands. GPI’s Dutch action includes claims premised on Energy Transfer’s dismissed federal RICO suit and on alleged out-of-court defamatory statements — matters the North Dakota proceedings did not adjudicate,” Justice Tufte wrote. “Any antisuit injunction entered on remand should leave GPI free to pursue those claims.”
He further wrote that Greenpeace International “may not avoid the injunction by replacing a barred theory under a different label.”
Chief Justice Lisa K. Fair McEvers wrote a dissenting opinion in which she stated she would conclude the district court acted within its discretion and would have denied Energy Transfer’s petition.
“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,” Gibson Dunn & Crutcher partner Trey Cox told The Texas Lawbook. “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.”
Spencer D. Ptacek and Lawrence Bender of Fredrikson & Byron, and Bradley G. Hubbard, Jaime R. Barrios, Collin J. Cox and Gregg J. Costa of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher represented Energy Transfer.
Elizabeth A. Elsberry and Christopher E. Rausch of Elsberry & Shively, and Steven Caplow, Eric Stahl, Everett W. Jack Jr., Laura Handman, Adam Caldwell and James Sigel of Davis Wright Tremaine represented Greenpeace International. They did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This case number is 20250341.