A win for the rule of law. In the lawsuit involving Greenpeace and the Dakota Access Pipeline, the North Dakota Supreme Court reaffirmed that American disputes should be decided in American courts, and not challenged through foreign legal maneuvers. jasonisaac.substack.com/p/gr… #EnergyInfrastructure #RuleOfLaw #Greenpeace

Europe has spent the last several years rebuilding energy supply networks and expanding industrial infrastructure. As that investment continues, permitting stability and confidence in judicial outcomes remain increasingly important to keeping large-scale projects moving forward. Read more: theparliamentmagazine.eu/par…

Europe’s anti-SLAPP Directive was designed to protect legitimate speech, not serve as a mechanism to relitigate disputes already decided in foreign courts. As energy and industrial projects become more complex and capital intensive, legal certainty and confidence in permitting systems remain essential to long-term infrastructure investment. Read more: theparliamentmagazine.eu/par…

“Energy Transfer appreciates the North Dakota Supreme Court’s careful decision. We have always believed that North Dakota’s courts, laws, and juries cannot be collaterally attacked in a foreign forum. Today’s ruling protects the authority of the North Dakota judicial system and the jury’s unanimous verdict from an improper end-run abroad. Energy Transfer looks forward to bringing this legal process to a close and holding Greenpeace accountable for the harm it caused.” - Trey Cox, partner at Gibson Dunn and lead counsel for Energy Transfer. natlawreview.com/article/nor…

The North Dakota Supreme Court’s recent ruling reinforces an important principle for large-scale infrastructure development: legal disputes decided in U.S. courts should not be relitigated through foreign jurisdictions. As energy projects become larger and more capital intensive, legal certainty remains critical to infrastructure investment, long-term planning, and the ability to build projects that support energy reliability and economic growth. Read more from the Hill: thehill.com/opinion/energy-e…

The @nodakchamber supports ND Supreme Court’s decision in the @EnergyTransfer v. @Greenpeace case. For GNDC, the case is about protecting confidence in ND’s legal system and maintaining a business climate where companies can rely on fair and final judicial outcomes. ndchamber.com/blog/brass-tac…

GNDC filed an amicus brief in the Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace case to defend a core principle: court decisions should be final. After a North Dakota jury ruled, Greenpeace pursued a parallel case in the Netherlands to challenge that outcome. The North Dakota Supreme Court rejected that effort, reinforcing the importance of final and reliable legal decisions. Read more: takebackthetruth.com/why-gnd…

A U.S. jury issued a final ruling. Now Greenpeace is asking a Dutch court to reverse it. Law professor Donald Kochan argues this approach challenges long-standing legal principles around finality and respect between courts, raising broader questions about whether foreign venues can be used to revisit settled U.S. cases. Article: washingtonexaminer.com/op-ed…

Greenpeace is asking a Dutch court to upend [international] legal order in its case against Energy Transfer, explains Donald Kochan. "The loser can pursue appeals, but they cannot start over in a different trial court altogether, hoping for a better result.” washingtonexaminer.com/op-ed…

BREAKING NEWS: The North Dakota Supreme Court has instructed a district court judge to stop Greenpeace's overseas free speech lawsuit against Energy Transfer. Trey Cox, the lead attorney representing Energy Transfer in its lawsuit against Greenpeace, applauded the ruling. In a Thursday statement, he said the high court’s decision “protects the authority of the North Dakota judicial system and the jury’s unanimous verdict from an improper end-run abroad.” northdakotamonitor.com/2026/…

Recent headlines out of the Middle East are a powerful reminder that global stability and energy stability go hand in hand. As Joshua Backaby highlights in this op-ed, America’s energy security depends on strong, reliable pipeline infrastructure right here at home. washingtontimes.com/news/202…

Litigation is emerging as a growing risk for U.S. energy infrastructure. Dozens of climate lawsuits are targeting oil and gas companies, raising questions about project certainty and long-term investment. At a time of rising demand and global instability, delays to pipelines and related infrastructure could have broader impacts on energy supply and costs. Article: washingtontimes.com/news/202…

"In its European lawsuit, Greenpeace does not offer any new evidence to dispute the findings of the North Dakota jury, which spent weeks hearing expert testimony and studying the evidence. Instead, it’s seeking a judiciary that is likely to have a more favourable view toward its brand of environmental extremism.” - Michael McKenna, columnist for The Washington Times. brusselsreport.eu/2026/04/09…

Nathaniel Buynak of Sherwood, N.D. writes: "To protect American courts and juries, North Dakota courts must act to shut down Greenpeace’s ridiculous EU lawsuit." inforum.com/opinion/letters/…

A jury in North Dakota reviewed the facts and made a call. Now Greenpeace is trying to redo the case overseas because they didn’t like the outcome. If foreign courts can override U.S. verdicts, what does that say about our legal system? natlawreview.com/article/gre…

Donald Kochan, Law Professor at George Mason University, argues that Greenpeace’s actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for both the American court and multiple longstanding and fundamental legal principles regarding finality and comity: “It is understandable why Greenpeace may not like the outcome of the North Dakota lawsuit, but our system has a very robust appeals process in which parties may press their claims of error. European courts, or any other state or foreign court for that matter, are not supposed to be available for second bites at the apple or to sit as courts of error second guessing the decisions of their peer courts.” law.com/nationallawjournal/2…

"Energy demand is skyrocketing. America needs energy projects to come online, to prevent blackouts and cost jumps. Instead of supporting that, we are giving extremists a ticket to break the law and avoid the consequences. This is not an issue of free speech. This is an issue of holding lawbreakers accountable and ensuring America can protect its energy systems." - Wayne Christian, Commissioner, Railroad Commission of Texas worldoil.com/news/2026/3/19/…

"This is not just another legal dispute... Greenpeace lost in court and should pay the damages awarded, not run to a foreign court while putting the rest of us at risk." - Tom Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance. dailycaller.com/2026/03/19/o…

"Greenpeace’s pursuit of parallel litigation represents an affront to judicial sovereignty." @Townhallcom townhall.com/columnists/geor…

NGOs are pursuing legal avenues in Europe after losing in U.S. courts, seeking to use foreign judicial systems to punish American energy companies.