Greenpeace Anti-SLAPP Suit Blocked by International Antisuit Injunction

Key Takeaways

• North Dakota Supreme Court issues narrow antisuit injunction against Greenpeace
• Injunction bars Dutch claims that label North Dakota verdict unfounded
• Energy Transfer’s $345 million judgment remains enforceable
• Dutch courts can still hear claims unrelated to North Dakota issues
• Case highlights tension between U.S. comity and EU anti‑SLAPP law

Pulse Analysis

The North Dakota Supreme Court’s decision to impose a limited antisuit injunction on Greenpeace International underscores a growing clash between domestic courts and transnational litigation strategies. By restricting the Dutch anti‑SLAPP suit to issues not already decided in the U.S., the court seeks to preserve the integrity of its judgment while avoiding a full embargo on foreign proceedings. This approach reflects a conservative stance on international comity, allowing foreign courts to continue hearing cases but curbing any attempt to overturn or undermine a state‑court verdict.

At the heart of the dispute is the EU’s Anti‑SLAPP Directive, which aims to protect civil‑society actors from abusive lawsuits, even when those suits originate outside the Union. Greenpeace invoked the Directive to challenge Energy Transfer’s U.S. lawsuits as attempts to silence public debate over the Dakota Access pipeline. While the Dutch legal framework permits jurisdiction over such claims, the North Dakota injunction seeks to prevent the Dutch court from applying the “manifestly unfounded” standard to a case already resolved domestically. This creates a novel legal tension: the foreign court must navigate a U.S. order that limits its substantive analysis without outright dismissing the case.

The broader implications for multinational corporations are significant. Companies now face the prospect that aggressive litigation tactics in one jurisdiction could be curtailed by courts elsewhere, especially when anti‑SLAPP statutes are invoked. Conversely, activist groups may encounter new hurdles when seeking redress in foreign forums, as domestic courts assert influence over the scope of their claims. As more jurisdictions adopt anti‑SLAPP measures, the balance between protecting free speech and respecting sovereign judicial processes will likely become a focal point of cross‑border legal strategy.