Energy Transfer constructed the Dakota Access Pipeline amid extended periods of demonstrations, intimidation, and fires set by environmental activists targeting the firm. The project has sparked prolonged legal battles, among them a suit brought by the pipeline operator against Greenpeace over its role in the unrest.

During March of last year, Energy Transfer prevailed in the case, with Greenpeace mandated to compensate the company with $667 million in damages, an amount that would drive the group into bankruptcy. Despite a judge later reducing the penalty to nearly half the amount, the infamous green group may have one more trick up their sleeve.

Towards the end of last year, Greenpeace attempted to mitigate the North Dakota ruling by appealing to European anti-SLAPP regulations in Dutch courts, despite a recent environmental assessment from the Army Corps reinforcing Energy Transfer’s stance in connected pipeline disputes. From The New York Times:

The Dutch legal action claims that Energy Transfer’s lawsuit in the United States was illegal, under European rules, because it was an attempt to silence critics of the pipeline company through costly and time-consuming litigation. That’s what is known as a SLAPP suit, or Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.

Greenpeace International said its only participation in the pipeline protests involved signing a letter to financiers of the project.

According to the Columbia Journalism Review, SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Essentially, an organization—often a government or business—dislikes the media attention it’s getting and seeks to penalize the reporting outlet by initiating legal action. The goal isn’t to secure compensation for any actual harm, but to halt the reporting altogether, as the media entity concludes it lacks the resources to fight the case. Anti-SLAPP laws aim to block these kinds of suits from proceeding.

On February 27, 2024, the European Parliament passed an Anti-SLAPP directive, mandating that EU member states create and enact their own anti-SLAPP regulations. The Netherlands’ government promptly followed through.

Although 38 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia possess anti-SLAPP laws, these measures are narrower in scope compared to their European counterparts.

Another key distinction between European and U.S. anti-SLAPP regulations is that the EU legislation extends past safeguarding free-speech freedoms. It grants European courts considerable flexibility to revisit American rulings when the outcomes clash with their principles.

Per the EU directive, courts may grant compensation to entities facing abusive legal actions, such as those featuring a power disparity between the sides or overly aggressive demands. The moves by the European Parliament paved the path for Greenpeace to pursue this backup strategy resulting from their loss in a North Dakota courtroom.

Prior to the start of the trial, Greenpeace International lodged a complaint in Dutch courts, asserting that Energy Transfer’s legal action constituted a SLAPP and thus infringed on Greenpeace’s protections under the anti-SLAPP statute. The Dutch judiciary has not yet ruled on Greenpeace’s claim, but the potential outcomes are vast, particularly if the decision goes in Greenpeace’s favor. Energy Transfer tried unsuccessfully to stop Greenpeace’s efforts in U.S. courts.

EU officials are not typically noted for restraint in such matters. It’s straightforward to envision scenarios where European courts attempt to supersede U.S. judicial decisions, statutes, and procedures. In light of recent events surrounding the EU trying to assert control over U.S. social media companies, it would not be surprising if Dutch courts side with Greenpeace.

Should Greenpeace’s endeavors prevail, this could pave the way for activists to sabotage further U.S. vital infrastructure initiatives including those undertaken by the Trump administration via European regulations. Here is hoping they do not.