Federal District Court Upholds Oregon’s Packaging EPR Law

On August 27, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued a much-anticipated decision rejecting constitutional challenges to Oregon’s plastic and packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law and upholding the law in full. This is the first final merits ruling in a handful of lawsuits with constitutional challenges to state packaging EPR laws.

Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) was enacted in 2021 with the goal of shifting the cost of “end of life” management of packaging, paper, and other covered products away from the state and local municipalities and back onto the entities that produce the materials. Obligated producers are required to join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), a private organization formed by producers, which works with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to implement the program and charge fees to the member producers proportional to the amount of covered material in the state that they produce.

This case, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, No. 3:25-cv-1334-SI, was filed on July 30, 2025, by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), a trade group whose members include businesses affected by the RMA. The court initially issued a preliminary injunction on February 6, 2026, blocking enforcement of the RMA against NAW members only. Before the court’s August 27 decision, two constitutional challenges remained in the case: (1) a challenge under the Dormant Commence Clause and (2) a challenge under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a 71-page opinion, the court rejected both theories and upheld the RMA in full.

Under the Dormant Commerce Clause, the court found that the RMA does not impermissibly discriminate against out-of-state businesses. The court found that (1) NAW had not shown a substantial and significant burden on interstate commerce, and (2) even if it had, the burden would not have been excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. The court also found that the RMA’s fee structure was not unreasonable.

With respect to the Due Process Clause, the court found that the RMA does not impermissibly delegate authority to the private PRO because DEQ retains ultimate authority and oversight. It also found that the RMA provides adequate procedural safeguards because producers have multiple avenues to dispute fees and producers are free to form their own PRO to comply with the law.

NAW is expected to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit.

Implications

This decision is significant because it is the first merits-based decision in a line of cases challenging state packaging EPR laws on constitutional grounds, and many view it as a bellwether for the larger packaging EPR landscape. There is ongoing litigation in Colorado and California challenging the states’ respective EPR laws, and this case could impact those decisions. While each state’s EPR law is organized differently, the constitutional claims are slightly different, and the judges hearing those cases are free to come to their own conclusions, this Oregon decision may help persuade other federal courts.

At this point, companies subject to packaging EPR laws should continue to comply with all packaging EPR requirements until and unless a challenge is successful and binding. Oregon, Colorado, and California’s EPR laws are all active with current reporting and payment obligations for producers.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.