Oregon’s extended producer responsibility law has survived a significant legal challenge, with a federal judge ruling it does not breach constitutional limits on state regulatory power.
Judge Michael H. Simon issued a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on August 27, 2026, in the case of National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, rejecting claims the law was unconstitutional.
The ruling found that Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act, known as the RMA, does not violate either the Dormant Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution.
The decision followed a five-day bench trial held in July 2026 before the US District Court for the District of Oregon, with both sides submitting extensive post-trial briefing.
The defendant in the case is Leah Feldon, Director of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, which administers the RMA program across the state.
Oregon enacted the RMA with an effective date of January 1, 2022, restructuring the state’s recycling system and shifting financial responsibility for packaging waste to producers.
The plaintiff, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, argued that businesses may spread extended producer responsibility costs across broader markets rather than passing them solely to Oregon customers.
NAW contended this arrangement could mean consumers outside Oregon help finance the state’s recycling infrastructure, raising concerns about the law’s reach beyond state borders.
Oregon responded that the Dormant Commerce Clause does not prohibit a state from imposing regulatory costs on businesses participating in its market merely because those businesses operate nationally or may choose to distribute their costs elsewhere.
The state further argued the RMA regulates covered products sold in or into Oregon and does not control transactions occurring wholly outside the state or prevent goods from crossing state lines.
Judge Simon was careful to draw a clear line between policy disagreements and constitutional invalidity, repeatedly separating the two concepts throughout his written findings.
The ruling acknowledged that the RMA requires fees to be only “approximately proportional,” and found the Constitution does not demand the level of precision or transparency that NAW preferred.
Judge Simon wrote that questions about “the wisdom of the legislation” and “the appropriateness of the remedy chosen” are not the court’s concern, firmly placing those debates in the legislative arena.
The decision does not hold that Oregon selected the best possible EPR structure, that fee calculations are perfectly transparent, or that producers’ practical concerns are unfounded.
The outcome carries significance far beyond Oregon, as EPR programs across the country increasingly rely on producer responsibility organisations to collect fees and finance recycling and waste management infrastructure.
Related litigation is already pending in Colorado under case number 1:26-cv-03460, challenging that state’s Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act, also known as House Bill 22-1355.
Legal observers expect the NAW v. Feldon decision to heavily influence the arguments advanced in the Colorado proceedings and potentially shape the outcome of that case.
For regulated businesses and producers, the ruling underscores that the specific design details of EPR programs are critical to whether they withstand constitutional scrutiny.
The allocation of governmental and private authority, mechanisms for contesting fees, treatment of confidential information, statutory exemptions, and interstate commerce effects will all remain key legal battlegrounds going forward.
The case serves as a reminder that as EPR legislation expands across US states, producers and distributors face an evolving and increasingly tested regulatory landscape with significant financial consequences.