American Legal Sovereignty Threatened By Greenpeace's Retaliatory EU Lawsuit

A North Dakota jury found Greenpeace liable for $670 million (later reduced to $345 million) in damages to Energy Transfer LP, stemming from disruptive protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The jury determined Greenpeace orchestrated unlawful disruption, defamation, and conspiracy. Rather than accepting the verdict, Greenpeace filed a retaliatory lawsuit in the Netherlands, leveraging the EU’s new anti-SLAPP directive, which allows entities to pursue damages against non-EU actors. This move aims to re-litigate the case and reframe Greenpeace’s actions as protected speech.

This tactic is concerning because it attempts to circumvent the US legal system and potentially undermines American legal sovereignty. The EU directive, intended to protect European activists from frivolous lawsuits, is being used to challenge a verdict already decided by a US jury. While a provision within the directive may offer some protection to Energy Transfer, the broader implications of allowing such relitigation are significant.

Energy Transfer has appealed a decision not to halt the EU lawsuit. The case raises critical questions about jurisdictional boundaries and the potential for foreign interference in US legal proceedings. Allowing Greenpeace to succeed could incentivize further tortious activity within the US and discourage companies from pursuing legitimate legal claims, ultimately eroding confidence in the American civil justice system.

(Source：Zerohedge)