 September 2026 - Special Edition
Programs & News – Oregon & Washington
Judge Upholds Oregon's Packaging EPR Law
On August 27, 2026, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon (District of Oregon) upheld the constitutionality of Oregon's Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (EPR for Packaging, Paper Products and Food Serviceware), ruling against a challenge brought by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) in NAW v. Feldon. The 71-page decision followed a five-day bench trial held in July 2026 and marks the first full court ruling on the constitutionality of a state packaging EPR law.
Oregon's Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) was the first U.S. packaging EPR law to be implemented. Under the law, producers of packaging, printing/writing paper, and food serviceware must report the quantities they distribute in the state and pay fees based on weight which fund investments in recycling infrastructure for local governments. NAW filed suit in 2025 and obtained a preliminary injunction in February 2026 that temporarily barred enforcement against NAW and its members.
NAW's two remaining constitutional claims were under the Due Process Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause; the court rejected both.
- First, NAW argued that the law violated due process by delegating regulatory authority to Circular Action Alliance (CAA), the producer responsibility organization (PRO) that administers the program, and by providing inadequate procedures for producers to challenge CAA fees. The court rejected both arguments. It found that the RMA provides sufficient state oversight and that producers have adequate procedures to challenge fee assessments and penalties, including notice, an administrative hearing, and judicial review before civil penalties must be paid.
- Second, NAW challenged the law under the Dormant Commerce Clause, arguing that the RMA discriminated against interstate commerce, imposed unreasonable user fees, and placed excessive burdens on interstate supply chains. NAW pointed to exemptions for certain small producers and Oregon public entities, as well as the program's impact on out-of-state wholesalers and distributors. The court rejected each theory, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory treatment, concluding that the fees were not constitutionally excessive, and holding that the burdens on interstate commerce were not “clearly excessive” in relation to Oregon's environmental and recycling benefits.
The ruling also found that NAW had not shown CAA's fees or budget to be “clearly excessive” relative to the program's needs and noted that NAW had not raised some of its constitutional concerns during the legislative or rulemaking processes before raising them in court. In his opinion, Judge Simon emphasized judicial restraint under the Dormant Commerce Clause, invoking a 2023 Supreme Court precedent concerning the application of the Dormant Commerce Clause to state laws affecting interstate commerce, as well as Justice Brandeis's “laboratory of democracy” concept, under which states have room to experiment with different approaches to public policy.
NAW has said it disagrees with the decision and is considering next steps; the organization is pursuing similar legal challenges to packaging EPR laws in California and Colorado.
Job Postings
City of Tacoma, Environment & Public Works:
King County: Natural Resources Policy Lead Advisor (Closing date: 9/4/2026 11:59 PM Pacific)
Engage with the Northwest Product Stewardship Council (NWPSC). Join as an Associate, Steering Committee, or Community member.
|
