Energy Transfer LP v. Gion

The North Dakota Supreme Court ordered a North Dakota district court to enjoin Greenpeace International (GPI) from pursuing an action in Dutch court to hold the developers and owner of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) liable under the European Union’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) directive. The developers—Energy Transfer LP; Energy Transfer Operating, L.P.; and Dakota Access LLC (together, Energy Transfer)—filed an emergency motion for an anti-suit injunction in the district court several months after a jury found that GPI and other Greenpeace defendants were liable for $667 million (later reduced to $345 million) in connection with actions related to DAPL protests. As a threshold matter, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that the case warranted its supervisory review of the district court’s denial of the emergency motion because Energy Transfer’s petition involved “fundamental interests” and presented “issues of vital concern on a matter of important public interest.” On the merits, the Supreme Court found that the district court erred when it concluded that the issues involved in GPI’s Dutch action were not “substantially similar” to the issues in Energy Transfer’s North Dakota lawsuit. The Supreme Court found that even though North Dakota did not recognize SLAPPs or anti-SLAPP actions, GPI’s claims in the Dutch complaint would require the Dutch court to resolve factual and legal questions in GPI’s favor that the North Dakota jury resolved against GPI. The North Dakota Supreme Court further found that an injunction was required because the Dutch action was “vexatious” based on the timing of its filing two weeks before the North Dakota jury trial began and also because the Dutch action was an attack on North Dakota’s “fundamental policy” regarding “an orderly process for challenging an adverse verdict” and because the Dutch action created a risk of inconsistent verdicts. The court also found that concerns regarding threats to international comity were diminished because the North Dakota case was the first-filed action, because Dutch law provided GPI with an adequate remedy at the enforcement stage, and because comity need not be extended to a foreign action filed in disregard of comity. The Supreme Court ordered that a “narrowly tailored” antisuit injunction be entered that would enjoin GPI from pursuing any claim in the Dutch action “whose elements require, as pleaded, a finding that the North Dakota case lacked legal foundation.” The Supreme Court said the antisuit injunction should not enjoin claims premised on Energy Transfer’s dismissed federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act suit≤/a> and on alleged out-of-court defamatory statements. The Chief Justice dissented and would have concluded that the district court acted within its discretion. The Chief Justice also wrote that the district court would not have authority to issue the injunction unless it first determined that the facts presented at trial supported a finding of personal jurisdiction over GPI.

The North Dakota Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for December 18, 2025 on the Dakota Access Pipeline developers’ petition requesting that the court issue a supervisory writ and instruct the district court to block Greenpeace International (GPI) from proceeding with its lawsuit in the Netherlands seeking to hold the pipeline’s developer liable under the European Union’s Anti-SLAPP Directive and Dutch civil law.