Why GNDC Filed an Amicus Brief in the Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace Case

In a recent 4-1 decision, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that Greenpeace International cannot continue pursuing portions of its lawsuit in the Netherlands that sought to undermine the North Dakota jury verdict tied to Dakota Access Pipeline protests.

The underlying North Dakota case involved claims brought by Energy Transfer alleging Greenpeace organizations helped coordinate unlawful activity, defamation, and interference tied to pipeline protests. After years of litigation, a Morton County jury largely sided with Energy Transfer and awarded significant damages. Greenpeace International later filed a separate lawsuit in the Netherlands under European anti-SLAPP laws, arguing the North Dakota case was abusive and unfounded.

That international lawsuit is what drew GNDC into the case.

The Greater North Dakota Chamber filed an amicus curiae brief — often called a “friend of the court” brief — to provide the Court with broader perspective on how the case could affect North Dakota’s business climate and legal environment beyond the parties directly involved.

GNDC’s role was not to retry the facts of the pipeline protests or weigh in on every aspect of the underlying dispute. Instead, GNDC focused on the larger principle at stake: whether North Dakota courts and jury verdicts can be undermined through parallel foreign litigation after years of proceedings in this state.

Specifically, GNDC supported the principles that:

• North Dakota courts must retain authority over North Dakota proceedings
• Jury verdicts should not be undermined through duplicative foreign litigation
• Preserving confidence in the state’s judicial system is essential to long-term economic prosperity

These issues affect every industry in North Dakota. Businesses make investment and expansion decisions based in part on confidence that disputes will be resolved through stable, predictable legal systems.

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed that portions of the Dutch lawsuit threatened the integrity of the North Dakota proceedings, describing it as “an attack on a fundamental policy of this state.”

SUM IT ALL UP
For GNDC, the case was about protecting confidence in North Dakota’s legal system and maintaining a business climate where companies can rely on fair and final judicial outcomes.