Federal court upholds Oregon's packaging EPR law in full
A U.S. federal court on 27 August 2026 upheld Oregon's packaging Extended Producer Responsibility law in full, rejecting a constitutional challenge from the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors and lifting a preliminary injunction that had blocked enforcement since February 2026. The decision, the first full-trial federal ruling on a state packaging EPR law's constitutionality, restores the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's power to enforce fee and reporting obligations administered by Circular Action Alliance against all covered producers, and is expected to influence pending challenges in Colorado and California.
Why this mattersThe ruling sets the first legal precedent that state packaging EPR fee regimes survive constitutional challenge, reinforcing enforcement risk for producers across six other US states.
- Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for Oregon ruled on 27 August 2026, rejecting Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process claims against the Recycling Modernization Act (RMA).
- The ruling lifted a preliminary injunction dated 6 February 2026 that had shielded National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) members from enforcement by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
- It is the first federal ruling on the merits, after a five-day bench trial held 13-17 July 2026, addressing the constitutionality of a state packaging EPR law.
- Circular Action Alliance administers Oregon's EPR programme as the producer responsibility organisation, with first producer fee invoices issued in July 2025.
- California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington have enacted similar packaging EPR laws; Nebraska et al. v. Heller, filed 22 June 2026 by a 17-state coalition and NAW, challenges California's SB 54.
- NAW has said it is weighing its next steps, and the district court is considered unlikely to pause implementation of the RMA.