On August 27, 2026, after a five-day bench trial in July, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, No. 3:25-cv-1334-SI, upholding Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (the Act), an extended producer responsibility law (ORS §§ 459A.860–.975).
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws generally shift certain recycling and end-of-life management costs for covered materials from local governments and ratepayers to the producers that place those materials in the market, which may include manufacturers, brand owners, distributors, retailers, and other entities, depending on the statute. The Act requires covered producers to join a producer responsibility organization (PRO), report the volume of covered material they bring into Oregon, and pay material-based fees.
The court found no discriminatory purpose or effect on interstate commerce and held that the Act’s compliance costs were not clearly excessive in relation to Oregon’s environmental and waste-management interests. The court also rejected the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors’ (NAW) private-nondelegation challenge, concluding that Oregon Department of Environmental Quality retains adequate oversight of the PRO. In addition, the court found that procedural safeguards—including notice, hearings, and judicial review—protect producers before penalties may be imposed.
What this means
This is the first federal trial court decision upholding a state EPR packaging statute against constitutional challenges. The decision may support the defense of similar EPR programs, particularly where a state agency retains final authority over PRO decisions, including fee-setting.
The Oregon decision is particularly significant because similar constitutional theories, including dormant Commerce Clause, private-nondelegation, and due process arguments, are now at issue in pending litigation challenges to EPR programs in California and Colorado.
- California: In Nebraska v. Heller, No. 2:26-at-01047 (E.D. Cal.), a 17-state attorney general coalition and NAW challenge California’s Senate Bill 54 on Commerce Clause, due process, First Amendment, and other grounds, with a preliminary injunction motion pending.
- Colorado: NAW v. Ryan, No. 1:26-cv-03460 (D. Colo.) raises similar Commerce Clause, due process, and First Amendment claims against Colorado’s EPR law. Separately, ILMA v. CDPHE, pending in Denver District Court, challenges Colorado’s delegation of regulatory authority to a private PRO and asserts a related due-process challenge.
Because the Oregon court found that state oversight of a PRO’s fee-setting process satisfied due process and that any incidental burdens on interstate commerce were not clearly excessive, the ruling could provide persuasive authority for state defendants in these pending cases. However, each challenge will turn on its own judicial decision-maker, statutory structure, and level of agency oversight.
What we’re monitoring
We will continue to monitor any appeal or other post-judgment proceedings in the Oregon case, EPR challenges in other states, and further developments in fee-setting and enforcement.
Producers should continue assessing whether they are covered; tracking state-specific reporting and registration deadlines; and preserving documentation relevant to reporting, fees, and any PRO-imposed obligations.