Introduction

On August 27, 2026, a federal court upheld Oregon’s Extended Producer Responsibility law in its entirety, rejecting a constitutional challenge from the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors. The ruling lifted a preliminary injunction that had shielded NAW members from enforcement since February 2026, meaning Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality can now enforce the law against all covered producers. This decision is the first federal ruling on the merits addressing a state packaging EPR law and is expected to influence pending litigation in other states.

Key Takeaways

• U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon upheld Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) in full on August 27, 2026, following a five-day bench trial.
• The court rejected both the Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause claims brought by NAW against the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
• The ruling lifted the February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction, restoring DEQ’s ability to enforce the RMA against all covered producers.
• Six other states, including California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, have enacted similar EPR packaging laws and may be affected by this precedent.
• Producers should treat this ruling as confirmation that EPR compliance obligations are active and enforceable, and should prioritize data readiness now.

What Did the Court Decide in NAW v. Feldon?

On August 27, 2026, Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued a 71-page ruling in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, upholding Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) in full following a five-day bench trial. The court concluded that the RMA violates neither the Dormant Commerce Clause nor the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, marking the first federal court decision to address the constitutionality of a state packaging EPR law on the merits after a full trial.

The immediate effect of the ruling is straightforward. The February 6, 2026 injunction that had shielded NAW and its members from DEQ enforcement has been lifted, and DEQ enforcement proceedings can resume against all covered producers. NAW has said it is weighing its next steps, though the district court is considered unlikely to pause implementation of the RMA regardless of what NAW decides.

Background: Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act and the Path to Trial

Oregon enacted the RMA in 2021 to shift end-of-life costs for packaging, printing and writing paper, and food service ware onto the producers who place these materials into commerce. The Circular Action Alliance (CAA), a private nonprofit, serves as the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) responsible for administering the program, including setting and collecting producer fees.

NAW, a trade association representing wholesalers and distributors, sued Oregon DEQ in 2025, arguing that the RMA’s fee-setting methodology and its delegation of authority to CAA were unconstitutional. Producers who registered with CAA began receiving their first fee invoices in July 2025, and NAW argued these fees were often higher than publicly projected and in some cases exceeded product margins.

On February 6, 2026, the court granted NAW a preliminary injunction, finding serious questions on the merits of the Due Process and Dormant Commerce Clause claims. That injunction applied only to NAW members as of the date of the court’s order and did not affect CAA’s broader operations. The case proceeded to a five-day bench trial held July 13 through 17, 2026, in Portland, Oregon, with post-trial briefings filed by July 31, 2026, and the court requesting supplemental briefing in early August before issuing its final decision on August 27, 2026.

What Changes Now for Producers Under Enforcement

With the injunction lifted, Oregon’s EPR program is now fully enforceable against all covered producers, not only those who were previously outside NAW’s protected membership. Producers who paused compliance activity, delayed CAA registration, or withheld fee payments during the injunction period should expect DEQ enforcement to resume, along with any applicable penalties or fees tied to the gap in compliance.

This is a critical distinction for any company that treated the injunction as a reason to deprioritize EPR readiness. The ruling confirms that reporting obligations, fee payments, and packaging data submissions to CAA are active requirements, and companies operating in Oregon should reassess their compliance status immediately rather than waiting for further legal developments.

How This Ruling Affects Other State EPR Programs

Six other states, including California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, have enacted packaging EPR frameworks similar to Oregon’s, and several are actively rolling out implementation. Two of those states now face active constitutional challenges of their own. In Colorado, the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA) filed suit in Denver District Court on March 12, 2026, targeting the state’s approval of an individual program plan that lets lubricant packaging bypass the main Producer Responsibility Organization in favor of a separate entity formed by major petroleum producers, while NAW filed a separate Colorado federal case raising Dormant Commerce Clause, Due Process, and First Amendment claims.

In California, a 17-state coalition led by Nebraska’s Attorney General, joined by NAW as the sole business plaintiff, filed suit on June 22, 2026, in Nebraska et al. v. Heller et al., No. 2:26-at-01047 (E.D. Cal.), seeking to invalidate the state’s packaging EPR law, SB 54. The complaint names CalRecycle Director Zoe Heller and Circular Action Alliance as defendants and raises Dormant Commerce Clause, First Amendment, and Due Process claims. A litigation landscape review confirmed that no comparable challenges have been reported against Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, or Washington’s EPR statutes as of this writing.

Because the Oregon decision is the first full-record federal ruling on these constitutional questions, legal analysts expect it to serve as persuasive authority in the Colorado cases and in any future challenges to EPR laws elsewhere. A related class action, Lollicup USA v. Feldon, filed June 25, 2026, raises similar claims on behalf of non-NAW member producers in Oregon, with a joint status report due to the court by September 10, 2026.

What Should Producers Do to Prepare for EPR Enforcement Now?

Companies operating in Oregon or any of the six other states with active EPR packaging laws should treat this ruling as a signal to move compliance planning from contingency to priority. This means auditing current packaging data against what each state’s PRO requires, verifying that CAA or equivalent fee calculations align with actual packaging volumes, and confirming that reporting timelines are met without relying on the possibility of further injunctions.

Given that similar constitutional challenges remain unresolved in Colorado and could arise in other states, producers should build compliance processes that hold up regardless of ongoing litigation elsewhere. Verified, audit ready packaging and materials data is the foundation for accurate EPR fee calculation and reduces exposure if enforcement intensifies.

Conclusion

The Oregon ruling closes the door on the first major constitutional challenge to a state packaging EPR law and confirms that enforcement is active for all covered producers. Companies still treating EPR compliance as uncertain or optional should reconsider that position now. ASUENE’s data collection and reporting tools help producers calculate packaging fees accurately, maintain audit ready records, and stay prepared as EPR enforcement expands across additional states. Executive teams should initiate an EPR compliance review today to confirm readiness ahead of further enforcement activity.

Why Work with ASUENE Inc.?

ASUENE is a key player in carbon accounting, offering a comprehensive platform that measures, reduces, and reports emissions, including Scope 1-3. ASUENE serves over 56,000 clients worldwide, providing an all-in-one solution that integrates GHG accounting, ESG supply chain management, a Carbon Credit exchange platform, and third-party verification.

ASUENE supports companies in achieving net-zero goals through advanced technology, consulting services, and an extensive network.