Take Back the Truth

"The Amsterdam court did not validate Greenpeace. It rejected the organization’s core legal theory and sent the case to a more difficult terrain. That is not a victory. Americans who depend on reliable, affordable energy should not let anyone pretend otherwise." - Jason Isaac washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jul/…

Respecting the integrity of the U.S. legal system matters. Allowing foreign courts to relitigate disputes already decided in America could undermine U.S. businesses, investment, and energy security. An important perspective worth reading: nationalreview.com/2026/07/the-du…

Public claims made about ongoing litigation can blur the line between procedural rulings and decisions on the merits. The Amsterdam District Court recently ruled on a narrow jurisdictional question in the ongoing litigation between Energy Transfer and Greenpeace, allowing proceedings to continue in the Netherlands. It did not rule on the underlying conduct and rejected the argument that the EU's Anti-SLAPP Directive applies. The $345 million verdict reached by a unanimous North Dakota jury remains fully intact. Accurately distinguishing what courts have and have not decided is an essential part of informed public discussion about accountability under the law. Get the facts: etfortherecord.org/fact-vs-fictio…

Declaring victory and winning a case are not always the same thing. The Amsterdam District Court did not overturn the North Dakota verdict, rule on the merits of Greenpeace's claims, or grant the relief Greenpeace is seeking. The $345 million judgment remains in place, and the substantive legal questions have yet to be decided. The broader question is whether parties should be able to seek a different outcome abroad after a dispute has already been litigated through one legal system. As conversations continue, it's important to separate rhetoric from reality. Read more about the facts surrounding the case: etfortherecord.org/fact-vs-fictio…

Ten years after the Dakota Access Pipeline became the subject of national controversy, its impact can be measured in results. The pipeline helps move more than half of Bakken crude to U.S. refineries, supports domestic energy production, and contributes to the economic resources that fund long-term investments across North Dakota. As global energy markets face continued uncertainty, reliable infrastructure remains one of the strongest foundations for energy security. Read more: grandforksherald.com/opinion/letter…

A win for the rule of law. In the lawsuit involving Greenpeace and the Dakota Access Pipeline, the North Dakota Supreme Court reaffirmed that American disputes should be decided in American courts, and not challenged through foreign legal maneuvers. jasonisaac.substack.com/p/greenpeaces-… #EnergyInfrastructure #RuleOfLaw #Greenpeace

Europe has spent the last several years rebuilding energy supply networks and expanding industrial infrastructure. As that investment continues, permitting stability and confidence in judicial outcomes remain increasingly important to keeping large-scale projects moving forward. Read more: theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/articl…

Europe’s anti-SLAPP Directive was designed to protect legitimate speech, not serve as a mechanism to relitigate disputes already decided in foreign courts. As energy and industrial projects become more complex and capital intensive, legal certainty and confidence in permitting systems remain essential to long-term infrastructure investment. Read more: theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/articl…

“Energy Transfer appreciates the North Dakota Supreme Court’s careful decision. We have always believed that North Dakota’s courts, laws, and juries cannot be collaterally attacked in a foreign forum. Today’s ruling protects the authority of the North Dakota judicial system and the jury’s unanimous verdict from an improper end-run abroad. Energy Transfer looks forward to bringing this legal process to a close and holding Greenpeace accountable for the harm it caused.” - Trey Cox, partner at Gibson Dunn and lead counsel for Energy Transfer. natlawreview.com/article/north-…

The North Dakota Supreme Court’s recent ruling reinforces an important principle for large-scale infrastructure development: legal disputes decided in U.S. courts should not be relitigated through foreign jurisdictions. As energy projects become larger and more capital intensive, legal certainty remains critical to infrastructure investment, long-term planning, and the ability to build projects that support energy reliability and economic growth. Read more from the Hill: thehill.com/opinion/energy…

The @nodakchamber supports ND Supreme Court’s decision in the @EnergyTransfer v. @Greenpeace case. For GNDC, the case is about protecting confidence in ND’s legal system and maintaining a business climate where companies can rely on fair and final judicial outcomes. ndchamber.com/blog/brass-tac…

GNDC filed an amicus brief in the Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace case to defend a core principle: court decisions should be final. After a North Dakota jury ruled, Greenpeace pursued a parallel case in the Netherlands to challenge that outcome. The North Dakota Supreme Court rejected that effort, reinforcing the importance of final and reliable legal decisions. Read more: takebackthetruth.com/why-gndc-filed…

A U.S. jury issued a final ruling. Now Greenpeace is asking a Dutch court to reverse it. Law professor Donald Kochan argues this approach challenges long-standing legal principles around finality and respect between courts, raising broader questions about whether foreign venues can be used to revisit settled U.S. cases. Article: washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/4544523…

Greenpeace is asking a Dutch court to upend [international] legal order in its case against Energy Transfer, explains Donald Kochan. "The loser can pursue appeals, but they cannot start over in a different trial court altogether, hoping for a better result.” washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/4544523…

BREAKING NEWS: The North Dakota Supreme Court has instructed a district court judge to stop Greenpeace's overseas free speech lawsuit against Energy Transfer. Trey Cox, the lead attorney representing Energy Transfer in its lawsuit against Greenpeace, applauded the ruling. In a Thursday statement, he said the high court’s decision “protects the authority of the North Dakota judicial system and the jury’s unanimous verdict from an improper end-run abroad.” northdakotamonitor.com/2026/05/07/nor…

Recent headlines out of the Middle East are a powerful reminder that global stability and energy stability go hand in hand. As Joshua Backaby highlights in this op-ed, America’s energy security depends on strong, reliable pipeline infrastructure right here at home. washingtontimes.com/news/2026/apr/…

Litigation is emerging as a growing risk for U.S. energy infrastructure. Dozens of climate lawsuits are targeting oil and gas companies, raising questions about project certainty and long-term investment. At a time of rising demand and global instability, delays to pipelines and related infrastructure could have broader impacts on energy supply and costs. Article: washingtontimes.com/news/2026/apr/…

"In its European lawsuit, Greenpeace does not offer any new evidence to dispute the findings of the North Dakota jury, which spent weeks hearing expert testimony and studying the evidence. Instead, it’s seeking a judiciary that is likely to have a more favourable view toward its brand of environmental extremism.” - Michael McKenna, columnist for The Washington Times. brusselsreport.eu/2026/04/09/gre…

Nathaniel Buynak of Sherwood, N.D. writes: "To protect American courts and juries, North Dakota courts must act to shut down Greenpeace’s ridiculous EU lawsuit." inforum.com/opinion/letter…

A jury in North Dakota reviewed the facts and made a call. Now Greenpeace is trying to redo the case overseas because they didn’t like the outcome. If foreign courts can override U.S. verdicts, what does that say about our legal system? natlawreview.com/article/greenp…