Monitoring Committee Deeply Concerned by the Retroactive Disqualification of North Dakota Supreme Court Justice and the Revelation that a Juror holds an economic connection to the Dakota Access Pipeline

March 11, 2025

The integrity of the judicial process is under grave threat in the case of Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace. As we have reported, developments in the trial (which began February 24) have raised profound concerns about a lack of impartiality, transparency, and adherence to due process in North Dakota’s civil court system. Below is our latest statement of concern.

Retroactive Disqualification of Judge Bahr

On Friday, March 7th at 6:17 a.m. CST, our monitoring committee received news of a shocking development regarding our petition to the North Dakota Supreme Court (NDSC). This petition sought public access to the livestream of the case. This request was similarly pursued in a separate petition to the NDSC by major media outlets like The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. These two petitions were denied by the NDSC, a disturbing development given that high-profile trials in North Dakota are regularly livestreamed or broadcast to the public. However, after denying our writ, the NDSC retroactively declared that Judge Douglas Bahr – one of the court’s five members – was "retroactively disqualified" from ruling on our writ. Judge Bahr had previously recused himself from the underlying case against Greenpeace in his prior role as a trial judge. Logically, this prior recusal also should have precluded him from ruling on any related proceedings, of which our writ was one. The attempt to retroactively remove his involvement while leaving the initial ruling intact appears to defy both legal logic, common sense, and judicial ethics. This raises serious concerns.

Juror Conflict Raises Serious Questions

Further undermining confidence in this trial is a revelation concerning Juror 14 that emerged in Day 10 of the trial. According to information obtained by our monitors and as reported by independent journalist Alleen Brown, Juror 14 “disclosed a previously unknown economic connection to the Dakota Access Pipeline. The juror shared that as part of their job, they at times do work for MPLX, a company that transports, stores, and processes natural gas liquids and oil […] MPLX owns a minority interest in the Dakota Access Pipeline”. This is an obvious conflict of interest. Alarmingly, the juror heard his company’s name mentioned during witness testimony last Thursday and reported this potential conflict to the court. Instead of excusing the juror, Judge Gion cleared the courtroom to question the juror privately, with only lead counsel present. Despite the clear conflict of interest, Juror 14 was permitted to remain on the panel. This decision also raises questions that in our opinion the court must address.

Lack of Transparency Undermines Accountability

Throughout this trial, the lack of public access has severely hindered oversight by the independent monitoring committee. Our committee, alongside national media, was denied access to a livestream that was being fed to lawyers for the parties. The court’s refusal to provide public transcripts or other documentation further obstructs transparency. The secrecy exhibited is untenable in a case with profound local, national, and even global implications for corporate accountability, free speech, and environmental justice.

North Dakota Civil Trial Standards

North Dakota law requires unanimous decisions in civil trials. The presence of a juror with a direct conflict of interest jeopardizes the integrity of this unanimity. Should a juror be found compromised mid-trial, the standard procedure is to dismiss the person and replace him or her with an alternate. The decision to retain Juror 14 not only violates this standard, but also puts at risk the legitimacy of the verdict.

Conclusion

The actions taken by North Dakota courts in this case on Friday, March 7—retroactively disqualifying a judge while upholding his ruling, and allowing a conflicted individual to remain on the jury—are alarming. These developments suggest a fundamental breach of the duty of impartiality and fairness. Without transparency, public trust in the judicial process can erode. These two events, combined with other observations of the committee, suggest  a pattern and practice that fail to meet the rigorous standards for fair and public trials under the Constitutions and laws of  North Dakota, the United States, and international legal instruments applicable to the United States.