"This labyrinth of litigation has never been about safety. It's always been about trying to impose a certain strain of energy politics on the marketplace through lawsuits." -- Rob Port

U.S. energy security depends on infrastructure decisions made years before supply becomes urgent. Ten years after Standing Rock, the Dakota Access Pipeline continues moving American oil to market, while California’s shrinking refining capacity leaves consumers vulnerable to foreign supply disruptions and price volatility. Jason Isaac examines how this contrast exposes the flaws of America's permitting system. Read more: takebackthetruth.com/what-da…

Energy infrastructure decisions made today shape the choices available tomorrow. This op-ed reflects on the lessons of the past decade, emphasizing the role infrastructure plays in delivering affordable energy, supporting economic growth, and helping meet future demand. dailywire.com/news/what-dako…

The facts surrounding Energy Transfer’s case against Greenpeace are well established. Following years of litigation and a weeks-long trial, a unanimous North Dakota jury held Greenpeace liable on multiple claims related to its conduct surrounding DAPL. The Court entered final judgment on the verdict, awarding Energy Transfer more than $345 million. Read the facts: takebackthetruth.com/fact-gr…

Greenpeace continues to challenge the outcome of its legal battle with Energy Transfer. But the fact remains unchanged: a North Dakota jury heard the evidence and unanimously held Greenpeace liable for its conduct related to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Read more: takebackthetruth.com/fact-gr…

“If the Dutch court rules in Greenpeace’s favor, the consequences could extend far beyond accountability for unlawful interference with one pipeline project. Such a ruling could undermine American legal sovereignty, weaken the authority of U.S. judgments, and create new uncertainty around the infrastructure on which American energy security depends.” -- Jeff Duncan washingtonexaminer.com/op-ed…

Greenpeace's lawsuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands suffered a significant setback after the Amsterdam District Court rejected the organization's attempt to rely on the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive. The case will continue under Dutch tort law, while the North Dakota jury verdict remains unchanged. The decision narrows Greenpeace's legal strategy and keeps the focus on the claims still before the court. Read more: washingtontimes.com/news/202…

A Dutch court has issued another key ruling in the ongoing legal dispute between Greenpeace and Energy Transfer. The Amsterdam District Court rejected Greenpeace's attempt to invoke the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive, requiring the remaining claims to proceed under Dutch tort law instead. The decision does not overturn the North Dakota verdict or change Greenpeace's liability in that case, but it significantly reshapes the legal framework governing the Dutch proceedings. As the litigation continues, the ruling marks an important milestone in one of the most closely watched infrastructure-related legal disputes in recent years. Read more: washingtontimes.com/news/202…

"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/202…

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/t…

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-f…

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-f…

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…

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/gr… #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/par…

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/par…

“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/nor…

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-e…

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…