Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International

The North Dakota Supreme Court denied the Greenpeace defendants’ petition for a supervisory writ directing the district court to change the venue of the trial from Morton County—where the Greenpeace defendants said residents’ everyday lives were “significantly disrupted” by the protests at Standing Rock—to another county. The Greenpeace defendants argued that jury questionnaires, voir dire, and a 2022 survey of potential jurors, as well as “pretrial publicity [that] fanned the flames of potential jurors’ fear and anger,” showed that the empaneled jurors were not actually impartial and that Morton County was a “fundamentally unfair venue.” The Greenpeace defendants contended that the venue was “potentially ruinous” because in the event “this biased panel” found them liable for the $900 million sought by the developers, the supersedeas bond needed to secure a stay of a judgment “would effectively destroy” the defendants.

–

–

–

–

Energy Transfer LP, Energy Transfer Operating, L.P., and Dakota Access LLC (together, Energy Transfer) filed an emergency motion for anti-suit injunction in North Dakota District Court asking the court to enjoin Greenpeace International (GPI) from proceeding with a lawsuit in the Netherlands in which GPI seeks an order declaring Energy Transfer’s North Dakota suit against GPI meritless and requiring Energy Transfer to pay damages. In March 2025, a jury in the North Dakota suit found GPI and other Greenpeace entities liable to Energy Transfer for $667 million in connection with protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. In the emergency motion, Energy Transfer argued that the threshold requirements for an anti-suit injunction were met because the parties and issues were functionally identical. Energy Transfer further argued that discretionary factors weighed in favor of an injunction. Energy Transfer contended that the Dutch action frustrated State of North Dakota policy interests, that the Dutch action was “vexatious,” and that it would result in unnecessary expense and duplicative efforts and was filed for the express purpose of gaining an inconsistent ruling and an improper “race to judgment.” Energy Transfer also contended that an injunction would not have an adverse impact on international comity. The North Dakota Monitor <a href="https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/08/06/greenpeace-says-north-dakota-judge-shouldnt-meddle-with-international-free-speech-case/">reported</a> that the North Dakota court would hear arguments on the motion on August 20.

Two post-trial hearings were held in May 2025 in Energy Transfer LP and Energy Transfer Operating, L.P.’s (Energy Transfer’s) lawsuit seeking damages from Greenpeace defendants (Greenpeace) for actions related to Dakota Access Pipeline protests. In March 2025, a state court jury found that the Greenpeace defendants were liable for $667 million in compensatory and exemplary damages. At a May 15 hearing, Greenpeace <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/greenpeace-challenges-damages/">said</a> it had argued that the damages awarded were in excess of what the law would allow and that they bore no reasonable relationship to Energy Transfer’s alleged damages. At a May 27 hearing, Greenpeace <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/energy-transfer-lawsuit-still-no-evidence-still-no-final-judgment/">said</a> the court heard Greenpeace’s arguments that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The court withheld any rulings on Greenpeace’s motions.

After a 12-day trial, a North Dakota jury found that Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace International, and Greenpeace Fund, Inc. (together, Greenpeace) were liable for almost $667 million in compensatory and exemplary damages to Energy Transfer LP and Energy Transfer Operating, L.P (Energy Transfer) and Dakota Access, L.L.C. (Dakota Access) for actions related to the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protests. Energy Transfer planned, designed, and constructed DAPL, which is owned and operated by Dakota Access. North Dakota Monitor <a href="https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/03/19/jury-finds-greenpeace-at-fault-for-protest-damages-awards-pipeline-developer-hundreds-of-millions/">published</a> the jury verdict form. The jury found that Greenpeace Inc. was liable to both Energy Transfer and Dakota Access for trespass, aiding and abetting trespass, trespass to chattel, aiding and abetting trespass to chattel, conversion, aiding and abetting conversion, nuisance, and aiding and abetting nuisance. Both Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace International were found liable for conspiracy, and all three defendants were found liable for defamation, defamation per se, and tortious interference with business. Greenpeace <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/verdict/">said</a> it would appeal the verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court and noted that it is pursuing an action against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands under the European Union’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) directive.