In a troubling departure from longstanding legal norms, the environmental activist group Greenpeace has turned to the European Union in an effort to undo an unfavorable verdict rendered against it in the United States. If successful, the implications would extend well beyond the nullification of a judgment unanimously decided by a jury of our peers.
At the center of the dispute is the landmark Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace decision handed down in March 2025 by a North Dakota district court. A jury found Greenpeace International and several of its affiliates liable on several counts related to their involvement in the destructive Dakota Access Pipeline protests in 2016. Energy Transfer, the pipeline’s owner, was initially awarded $667 million in damages. Although the trial judge later reduced to $334 million, Greenpeace’s response was not confined to the ordinary appellate process.
Instead, during the trial, Greenpeace International filed a separate lawsuit in the District Court of Amsterdam, where the organization is headquartered. Invoking the EU’s newly enacted Anti-SLAPP Directive – a legal directive intended to deter lawsuits designed to suppress lawful public speech – Greenpeace accused Energy Transfer of pursuing an “unfounded and abusive” lawsuit, despite offering no new evidence beyond what had already been presented in the North Dakota proceedings.
Setting aside the shaky merits of the EU case, Greenpeace’s pursuit of parallel litigation represents an affront to judicial sovereignty. Our legal system provides established mechanisms for contesting adverse judgments, including post-trial motions and appellate review. Allowing any litigant to pursue a more favorable forum once a lawful judgment has been rendered undermines confidence in the judiciary by weakening its ability to provide finality. A nation’s courts must retain the authority to adjudicate disputes under their own laws without foreign second-guessing.
The doctrine of res judicata exists precisely for this reason. As a doctrine of finality, res judicata exists to bar parties from relitigating claims that have already been decided by a competent court. While limited exceptions do exist – most commonly where new evidence emerges or where enforcing a judgment would result in a clear and grave injustice – Greenpeace satisfies neither. The absence of new evidence is plain, and any claim of injustice is hindered by the court’s careful post-trial review and partial reduction of damages, which largely reaffirmed the jury’s findings.
As concerning are the ripple effects Greenpeace’s actions would have on transatlantic trust and commercial relations. According to Texas-based attorney Charles Meyer, transatlantic judicial respect has served as a bedrock principle of international law for centuries. When legal principles are weaponized for political retribution, that trust erodes, along with the willingness to honor mutually beneficial agreements like the $750 billion EU-US energy pact.
Faced with the prospect that lawful U.S. judgments can be undone abroad, it is no surprise that American energy companies would think twice before aiding our closest allies.
Our courts have a duty not only to deliver justice to those who appear before them, but to safeguard the authority of the judicial system itself. Judicial sovereignty is not a discretionary principle; it is a constitutional necessity. Allowing foreign courts to second-guess duly rendered American verdicts would weaken the rule of law at home, erode confidence abroad, and reward those who seek to evade accountability rather than respect it.