A coalition of 17 state attorneys general has escalated its legal challenge against California’s landmark plastic packaging law by filing a motion for a preliminary injunction.
The motion, filed in the Eastern District of California, targets California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, also known as Senate Bill 54.
The coalition filed alongside the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, collectively seeking to block enforcement of the entire Act while constitutional proceedings continue.
If granted, the injunction would suspend fee collection, registration, reporting, source-reduction mandates, and program plan implementation for all covered producers under SB 54.
The requested relief would also affect the California Air Resources Board’s first round of invoices, which are expected to issue by early 2027.
A hearing on the motion has been scheduled for January 15, 2027, before Judge Dena Coggins, meaning producers face a prolonged period of uncertainty in the interim.
Along with the injunction motion, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint introducing a new vagueness theory linked to a separate legal challenge against California’s labeling law, SB 343.
SB 54 requires that by 2032 all covered material must be “recyclable,” incorporating recyclability criteria from Public Resources Code section 42355.51, four requirements of which were preliminarily enjoined by a federal court under SB 343 on July 14, 2026.
The coalition argues that because those recyclability criteria have been enjoined, SB 54’s remaining provisions are rendered unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable against producers.
The amended complaint separately challenges SB 54’s definition of “covered material,” particularly the phrase “routinely recycled, disposed of, or discarded,” arguing it fails to provide producers with fair notice about whether the Act applies to their products.
Producers therefore cannot determine what compliance requires when the underlying standards have been pulled out from under them, the coalition contends, with implications extending into near-term fee calculations and eco-modulation criteria.
The scope of the requested relief is notably broader than the injunction granted in the Oregon Extended Producer Responsibility case in February 2026, where relief was only extended to the named plaintiffs.
The amended complaint raises twelve counts in total, which the motion groups into six overarching constitutional theories, including vagueness, extraterritorial reach, and dormant Commerce Clause challenges.
Producers and industry groups are watching the January 2027 hearing closely, as the outcome could reshape compliance obligations across the United States for packaging and plastics regulation.