Oregon Court Deals Setback to Climate Movement

A climate initiative aimed at oil and gas companies faced a significant defeat recently in an Oregon court. Plaintiffs’ lawyers admitted to not disclosing funding for two studies that were included as evidence. One of the defendants argued this situation reveals an ethically questionable relationship between local governments, lawyers, and advocacy groups that have, despite ongoing losses across at least ten jurisdictions in the past two years, propelled this kind of litigation forward.

This case involves a $51 billion lawsuit filed by Multnomah County against several energy firms. A defendant, Chevron, argued in court that the county’s lead attorney, Roger Worthington, failed to disclose his involvement in producing two Nature studies. These studies were later cited as credible scientific evidence by the county’s experts in relation to the blame for the 2021 heat wave.

This lack of disclosure, according to the motion filed, “undermines the integrity of the judicial process” and resonates with a U.S. Supreme Court case highlighting “legal fraud” through secret manipulation of scientific evidence.

The motion claims, “The plaintiffs’ lead attorney, Roger Worthington, has not proactively disclosed his connection to at least two climate change studies. In April and May 2025, plaintiffs and their experts relied on what they claimed to be independent scientific research, which actually wasn’t.” It further states that such misconduct perpetuates what the Supreme Court regards as fraud in court.

This development hints at a broader issue. One expert for the plaintiffs, Daniel Swain, reportedly utilized one of the Nature studies without revealing Worthington’s financial ties. Another expert from Oxford, Benjamin Franta, associated with the plaintiff’s law firm, purportedly referenced the same study to argue against dismissing the case. Defendants allege these overlaps indicate a systemic collaboration within the plaintiffs’ attorneys, their experts, and the climate litigation network.

Judge Benjamin Soudet, after reviewing arguments from both parties, concluded there wasn’t enough evidence to prove Worthington committed fraud and denied Chevron’s request to exclude the Nature articles from the case. However, he criticized Worthington’s lack of disclosure about his role in the studies, describing it as an “almost disastrous failure,” especially in such a crucial and complex case.

Judge Soudet mentioned he might still consider including the relevant studies in the record, but emphasized that any conclusions drawn would “carry no weight whatsoever” when a final judgment is reached. This suggests a pattern where judges in similar cases have favored the defendants without allowing full trials.

His remarks have sparked skepticism in courts nationwide, as similar climate lawsuits have been rejected in states like Pennsylvania, South Carolina, New York, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico. Judges have consistently deemed that attempts to hold companies accountable for global emissions constitute unconstitutional efforts to control air quality, a task designated to the federal government under the Clean Air Act.

The Multnomah case exemplifies these issues. Whether Worthington’s undisclosed influence ultimately impacts Judge Soudet’s ruling remains to be seen, but it underscores troubling ethical concerns within this climate litigation framework. Despite substantial financial backing, the movement seems to be faltering under judicial scrutiny.