Will a Dutch court let Greenpeace undermine U.S. judicial sovereignty?

OPINION:

Several fundamental truths are critical in understanding America and our place in the world.

One is the importance of access to abundant, secure sources of domestic energy, as well as the infrastructure to move that energy. Without that infrastructure, all the oil, gas and coal in the world would do little good. In fact, the combination of access to sufficient energy resources and the ability to transport them safely and efficiently is as important to America’s security as its strong military and abundant food supply.

Another fundamental truth concerns our legal system, anchored in our fealty to the rule of law. It is the concept that laws are not made or administered arbitrarily but through a well-defined, established process that holds everyone, regardless of rank or status, accountable for their actions.

An unfortunate third truth may be that organizations such as Greenpeace are bound and determined to undermine both of those pillars.

You may recall that, in 2016 and 2017, there was a violent and destructive campaign against the Dakota Access Pipeline, or DAPL. According to the jury’s findings, Greenpeace paid and trained activists in tactics that went far beyond what any reasonable person would consider simple civil disobedience: trespass, sabotage, aggressive engagement with workers, acts of provocation against law enforcement and other actions that caused millions of dollars in damage and delays.

Greenpeace also waged a campaign of disinformation against Energy Transfer, the company building the pipeline, making outlandish, patently false claims about it.

Justice finally came for Greenpeace in 2025. That year, a North Dakota jury handed down a $667 million verdict — reported as the largest judgment ever awarded against an environmental organization by an American court — finding it liable for these actions.

Although the award was later reduced to $345 million, it is still a groundbreaking and just punishment for actively and illegally interfering with a critical infrastructure project.

What Greenpeace did alongside the legal proceedings is astonishing and outrageous, even for an organization that deals in the outrageous. In addition to appealing the jury’s decision in an American court, it took its case overseas, filing a retaliatory lawsuit against Energy Transfer in a Dutch court.

It did this by exploiting the European Union’s Anti-SLAPP Directive — the anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation measure designed to protect European journalists and civil society from frivolous lawsuits — as a vehicle to challenge the U.S. verdict abroad.

Greenpeace is essentially asking a court in the Netherlands to award damages that would negate the U.S. jury verdict on the grounds that it was simply exercising “free speech” in the course of trespassing, defaming and conspiring to cause physical damage to critical energy infrastructure.

Should the Dutch court erroneously find in Greenpeace’s favor, it could set a troubling precedent: a legal pathway to avoiding accountability to U.S. law.

It would mean that if any party that has even a trace of a connection to Europe finds itself in a legal dispute in the United States and is ultimately found liable by a U.S. court or jury, all it has to do is find a foreign jurisdiction more favorable to its position, file suit there and secure a verdict that essentially nullifies the damages that have been awarded.

In effect, this would completely circumvent the American justice system and undermine the sovereignty of our courts.

Beyond the alarming yet seemingly abstract legal concerns, there would also be concrete impacts on the U.S. and, ironically, on Europe. Any extremist environmental organization would look at such a ruling as a green light to engage in the same sort of damaging, violent and distasteful tactics employed by Greenpeace in the DAPL campaign, safe in the knowledge that even if they are found liable for their actions here, they have access to a foreign legal relief valve.

This would immediately impose a level of risk and cost on any energy infrastructure project on U.S. soil, greatly limiting our ability to transport our national resources to domestic and overseas markets.

This ought to be concerning to the Europeans as well, who have learned the hard way since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine how much they depend on American energy. Unless they would rather depend on Russia — the wolf on their eastern flank — to keep their lights and heat on during the winter, they should be hesitant to facilitate efforts to paralyze the American energy supply.

Protest is an important right enshrined in the Constitution, but the Dutch court should reject Greenpeace’s claims and see the play for what it really is: an attempt to circumvent the American justice system.

Misusing this well-intentioned, if not slightly misguided, EU legal directive hurts everyone and would undermine several important fundamental truths.

• Ken Buck is a former member of the House of Representatives representing Colorado’s 4th Congressional District.