Oregon's Paper And Packaging EPR Law Survives The Following Trial

On August 27, 2026, following a five-day bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon upheld Oregon's Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (the "Act") in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, No. 3:25-cv-1334-SI (D. Or.), rejecting NAW's remaining claims under the dormant Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The 71-page decision by Judge Michael H. Simon is the first merits ruling on a trial record addressing the constitutionality of a state packaging extended producer responsibility ("EPR") law—and it leaves the Act in effect.

The court analyzed the case through the lens of National Pork Producers Council v. Ross and Justice Brandeis's "states-as-laboratories" metaphor, emphasizing that "[c]ompanies that choose to sell products in various States must normally comply with the laws of those various States," and that any preference for national uniformity is a matter for Congress, not the courts.

Dormant Commerce Clause. The court found no discriminatory purpose and no evidence that the Act favors Oregon businesses over similarly situated out-of-state competitors. NAW also failed to prove that the Act's exemptions materially shift recycling costs onto covered producers, that the program's fees are constitutionally excessive, or that the Act imposes a substantial burden on interstate commerce. Notably, the court did not dismiss the real-world compliance costs—trial testimony included one distributor whose roughly $884,000 invoice from Circular Action Alliance ("CAA") consumed most of its $1.2 million gross profit on Oregon sales—but held that increased costs to particular firms do not amount to a substantial burden on the interstate market, and that even assuming such a burden, it would not be clearly excessive in relation to Oregon's interests in managing waste, reducing pollution, and protecting public health. Nor did CAA's first-year underspend (approximately $145.5 million collected against $56.5 million spent) establish an excessive fee, given the program's early stage and projected fee reductions.

Due Process. The court rejected NAW's private nondelegation theory, finding that Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") retains ultimate approval and enforcement authority; trial evidence showed DEQ reviewed CAA's proposed fee methodology, required substantive changes, and evaluated whether the resulting fees complied with the Act. Producers also are not compelled to join CAA—they may form their own producer responsibility organization or use the Act's private recycling exemption. And the Act provides adequate procedural safeguards, including notice-and-cure periods, administrative hearings, and judicial appeals, with no civil penalty due until appeals are exhausted.

Squaring the result with the February injunction. In February 2026, the court granted a preliminary injunction that blocked enforcement of the Act. However, the court never found NAW likely to prevail on the merits—only that a limited record raised "serious questions" warranting temporary relief pending an expedited trial. After hearing thirteen witnesses, receiving 57 exhibits and additional deposition testimony, and reviewing nine amicus briefs, the court concluded that NAW had not substantiated its constitutional theories.

Why it matters beyond Oregon. The decision could provide support for states defending similar packaging EPR programs, although the court’s analysis turned in significant part on the Oregon statutory framework and the evidentiary record developed at trial. NAW may appeal to the Ninth Circuit. We are monitoring the case and parallel challenges closely.