Greenpeace Seeks to Undermine US Law in a Dutch Court

When Zohran Mamdani said New York is a "city of international law," no one should have believed such a mentality would apply only to the Big Apple. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and the Democratic Party, have been itching for years to use international law and governing bodies like the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations (U.N.) to undermine our Constitution and sovereignty.

Now Greenpeace is trying to do that by asking a Dutch court to overturn the verdict of an American jury.

Greenpeace Asks a Dutch Court to Reverse an American Verdict

The group wants to use European law as a shield to disrupt American infrastructure projects.

by Michael Toth https://t.co/Nc1Cizun7S
— NOfP-X (@NOfPPlus) December 6, 2025

Here's more from The Washington Post:

A North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace in March to pay pipeline company Energy Transfer $667 million for the environmental group’s rogue campaign to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. Now, Greenpeace is trying to get a Dutch court to nullify the jury award, which the trial judge reduced to $345 million in October. Energy Transfer is asking the North Dakota Supreme Court to block the activist group’s attempt to end-run the U.S. legal system. If Greenpeace’s efforts succeed, they would harm much more than the pipeline company. They’d open the door for activists to torpedo other American critical infrastructure projects under European law.
The Dakota Access Pipeline saga started a decade ago when activists descended on North Dakota in hope of halting the project. During the monthslong standoff, reports spread of protesters shackling themselves to equipment, blow-torching parts of the pipeline, and hurling feces and burning logs at workers.
The chaos delayed the project, costing the parent company and partner entities an estimated $7.5 billion or more. The federal government was ordered to pay North Dakota $28 million in damages. Kelcy Warren, then Energy Transfer’s CEO, didn’t take those losses sitting down. “What they did to us is wrong,” he said in 2017 of the environmental groups behind the demonstrations, “and they’re going to pay for it.”

Rather, Greenpeace is asking a Dutch court to reassess the merits of the North Dakota case under Europe’s sweeping anti-Slapp directive. The case marks the first attempt to apply the law “extraterritorially” to stymie a lawsuit brought in a country outside the European Union.
— NOfP-X (@NOfPPlus) December 6, 2025

And here's what Greenpeace did to aid and abet protesters.

During a three-week trial in March, the pipeline company presented evidence that Greenpeace personnel funded and trained protestors and even equipped them with lockboxes to chain themselves to pipeline equipment. It also said that Greenpeace attempted
— NOfP-X (@NOfPPlus) December 6, 2025

to deprive the project of funding by falsely claiming the pipeline would encroach on tribal land. Greenpeace tried to distance itself from the violent conflict surrounding the pipeline. But the group couldn’t take back a 2016 email from Greenpeace USA’s executive director
— NOfP-X (@NOfPPlus) December 6, 2025

stating the “massive” support it provided to the protests. The jury returned a nine-figure verdict, including $400 million in punitive damages.

Greenpeace had a Plan B, however. On the eve of the trial, Greenpeace International filed a new lawsuit
— NOfP-X (@NOfPPlus) December 6, 2025

Greenpeace is based in Amsterdam, so the filing was made in the District Court of Amsterdam.

with the District Court of Amsterdam, where the group is based. The suit claims that Energy Transfer’s litigation violated Greenpeace International’s rights under the European Union’s 2024 anti-Slapp law, an anagram for strategic litigation against public participation.
— NOfP-X (@NOfPPlus) December 6, 2025

The law seeks to protect journalists and nonprofit organizations from meritless lawsuits designed to silence or intimidate them.

Greenpeace’s case isn’t an ordinary appeal, in which a party asks a higher court to review a lower court’s application of the law.
— NOfP-X (@NOfPPlus) December 6, 2025

How the Dutch courts plan to enforce such a ruling or overturn an American jury's verdict remains to be seen.