Energy Transfer, the company behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, is escalating its legal battle against Greenpeace with an unprecedented strategy: seeking to block a countersuit filed by Greenpeace International in the Netherlands through a North Dakota court. This move, while not entirely unheard of, represents an aggressive attempt to stifle international legal challenges by leveraging domestic jurisdiction.
The Core of the Dispute
The legal conflict stems from years of protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, which Greenpeace and other environmental groups vehemently opposed. Energy Transfer secured a nearly $670 million judgment against Greenpeace USA earlier this year, citing damages from the protests. Now, instead of simply pursuing enforcement of that judgment, the company is actively attempting to prevent Greenpeace International from filing a separate lawsuit in its home jurisdiction – the Netherlands.
An Unconventional Legal Maneuver
The pipeline company is urging the North Dakota Supreme Court to issue an injunction blocking the Dutch lawsuit. Legal experts, including Columbia Law School professor George A. Bermann, note that such international injunctions are rare. Courts typically avoid interfering with foreign legal proceedings unless absolutely necessary, due to complex jurisdictional issues.
The Challenge of Enforcement
Even if the North Dakota court were to grant the injunction, enforcing it would be problematic. Greenpeace International operates outside U.S. jurisdiction. A contempt ruling by a North Dakota court would be difficult to collect if the organization has no presence within the state. This raises fundamental questions about the limits of domestic courts in controlling international legal actions.
Why This Matters
This case highlights a growing trend: corporations increasingly using aggressive legal tactics to silence opposition. By pursuing this unusual injunction, Energy Transfer is attempting to extend its legal reach beyond U.S. borders, potentially setting a precedent for other companies seeking to suppress international activism. The outcome will likely depend on how the North Dakota court balances its domestic authority against the principles of international legal autonomy.
The situation underscores the tension between corporate power and environmental resistance, and it raises concerns about the erosion of legal boundaries in an era of globalization. The case is likely to be watched closely by both environmental groups and corporations, as it could redefine the scope of legal warfare in the 21st century
