For almost 240 years, the Constitution has been the law of the land and American courts have been the final arbiters of legal disputes in the United States. Our friends at Greenpeace would like to change that and allow European courts to nullify verdicts of American juries and American judges.
In March, a jury in North Dakota concluded that Greenpeace had engaged in civil conspiracy, trespassing, defamation and other acts against pipeline company Energy Transfer and ordered the organization to pay $667 million in damages for its role in orchestrating the 2016-2017 protests against the Dakota Access pipeline. In an effort to avoid responsibility and perhaps prevent bankruptcy, Greenpeace International has filed a countersuit in the European Union against Energy Transfer, alleging that the American case was a strategic lawsuit against public participation, that it was, in essence, an effort to prevent Greenpeace from being activists.
The European Commission passed a directive against such lawsuits last year, and the Greenpeace case is an early test of whether these rules will apply to foreign judgments. Energy Transfer asked a North Dakota judge to halt the European Union’s proceedings, but the judge recently declined that request. The company is appealing that decision.
Should Greenpeace’s lawsuit continue, it could affect — not in a good way — every American company with any connections to Europe.
American oil and gas companies have become accustomed to dealing with the publicity and fundraising stunts and gimmicks employed by activist groups such as Greenpeace. During protests and whatnot, these companies have remained confident that gadflies and obstructionists would have to act within the law or face consequences. If groups such as Greenpeace are granted de facto immunity from European courts to break American laws, their tactics would almost certainly become more violent and more damaging.
Energy Transfer’s case against Greenpeace has already provided a stark reminder of the lengths to which some are willing to go. In that trial, the jury heard compelling evidence that Greenpeace dispatched professional protesters to the region, provided equipment and then helped train other protesters at the site. Greenpeace also paid for lockboxes that protesters could use to tie themselves to construction equipment.
In the months that followed, protesters engaged in acts of violence, vandalism and arson in their efforts to prevent the pipeline from being constructed. Greenpeace also disseminated — let’s be charitable and call it inaccurate — information about the company and its project, wrongly claiming that the pipeline would cross the sacred tribal lands of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
Although the pipeline was ultimately constructed, Greenpeace’s actions delayed the project and cost Energy Transfer and, ultimately, its customers, tens of millions of dollars. The protests also severely disrupted the North Dakota communities near the pipeline.
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 favorable view toward its brand of environmental extremism.
Laws against strategic lawsuits against public participation were originally developed to protect free speech by shutting down frivolous lawsuits designed to silence people. In this case, the lawsuit was plainly not frivolous, given that a jury agreed with the plaintiff. Greenpeace’s ability to say what it thinks has not been impinged upon in any way. Indeed, it continues to regularly attack Energy Transfer in its press releases and blog posts.
If Greenpeace is allowed to circumvent an American jury’s decision through a lawsuit in the European Union, it would set a very bad precedent for American courts and companies. Extremist groups will feel free to operate with impunity in their efforts to disrupt energy projects and other vital economic infrastructure, such as roads or bridges.
American courts and American juries are and should be the only entities empowered to dispense justice in the United States. If their verdicts are subject to relitigation in European courts, then the Constitution means nothing. Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States or it is not.
