ND Supreme Court Halts Greenpeace's Dutch Lawsuit Against Dakota Access Developer

The North Dakota Supreme Court has intervened to halt an overseas lawsuit against the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), a critical legal victory for Energy Transfer. In a 4-1 ruling issued Thursday, the high court instructed a district judge to stop the suit filed by Greenpeace International in the Netherlands, according to a report from the North Dakota Monitor.

The court's majority found that the Dutch case threatened to undermine the verdict from a Morton County jury, which last spring sided with most of Energy Transfer's claims against the environmental group. Justice Jerod Tufte, writing for the majority, stated that Greenpeace International's aim in the Amsterdam court would require a finding that contradicts the North Dakota jury's decision on key issues.

This legal battle is an extension of Energy Transfer's original lawsuit, where it accuses Greenpeace International and two affiliate organizations of conspiracy, defamation, and other crimes aimed at stopping the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. In early 2025, Greenpeace International counter-sued in the Netherlands under a European Union law designed to protect those sued in retaliation for protest speech.

Energy Transfer had asked Southwest Judicial District Judge James Gion last year to order Greenpeace to refrain from pursuing the overseas lawsuit. Judge Gion denied the request, finding the Dutch suit addressed different matters and was unlikely to interfere with the North Dakota case, which he noted would likely conclude first. Energy Transfer appealed that denial to the state Supreme Court in September.

The Supreme Court's reversal directs Judge Gion to enter an order halting the Dutch suit. Chief Justice Lisa Fair McEvers was the lone dissenting justice in the 4-1 decision. Justices Mark Friese and Douglas Bahr recused themselves from the case, with district judges Stephanie Hayden and James Shockman sitting in their place.

For Bakken operators and the state, the pipeline remains a vital conduit for moving crude oil to market. Legal certainty surrounding its operations and the defense against challenges is a persistent concern. This ruling prevents a foreign court from potentially negating a North Dakota jury's verdict, reinforcing the state's judicial authority over matters central to its energy infrastructure.

Energy Transfer alleges that Greenpeace International filed the Dutch case solely to overturn the unfavorable North Dakota verdict. Greenpeace, meanwhile, claims Energy Transfer has weaponized the legal system to punish it for supporting the pipeline protests that drew international attention to the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation nearly a decade ago.