A federal court has partially barred enforcement of an Oregon law requiring certain producers of packaging, paper products and food service ware to fund and participate in recycling and waste management programs. The court’s ultimate decision could have far-reaching implications for the viability of state-level “extended producer responsibility” (EPR) programs across the country.
On Feb. 6, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued a significant ruling in a suit by the National Association of Wholesale-Distributors (NAW) against the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). NAW challenged the law on multiple constitutional grounds, including alleged violations of the Dormant Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The court partially granted NAW’s motion for a preliminary injunction and partially dismissed several claims without prejudice. The court enjoined the DEQ from enforcing Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act — formally enacted as Senate Bill 582 (2021) — against NAW and its members while litigation challenging the act proceeds. But the injunction does not invalidate the statute in full and is limited in scope to association members.
The case is National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, Case No. 3:25-cv-01334-SI.
SB 582, codified at Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 459A.860–459A.975, establishes an EPR framework requiring certain producers of packaging, paper products, and food service ware sold in Oregon to fund and participate in a producer responsibility organization. This organization facilitates recycling and waste management beyond the traditional consumer use lifecycle of the product. The statute authorizes DEQ oversight of the program and imposes reporting, registration, and fee obligations on covered entities.
In its Feb. 6 order, the court dismissed several claims without prejudice, including NAW’s Oregon constitutional claims, equal protection theory and certain other constitutional challenges. However, the court allowed NAW’s Dormant Commerce Clause and procedural due process claims to proceed. Applying the Ninth Circuit’s preliminary injunction standard articulated in All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1128 (9th Cir. 2011), the court found that NAW raised serious questions going to the merits, demonstrated likely irreparable harm, and showed that the balance of equities tipped sharply in NAW’s favor — warranting temporary injunctive relief.
This ruling is procedural and interim; it does not constitute a final judgment on the merits. The statute remains fully operative as to all entities that are not NAW members, and DEQ has indicated it will continue enforcement against nonmembers.
Nevertheless, the decision is notable for several reasons. First, it appears to be among the first federal court preliminary injunctions targeting a state EPR program, potentially signaling constitutional vulnerabilities in this regulatory framework. Second, the court’s analysis of the Dormant Commerce Clause claim suggests that EPR packaging laws imposing substantial compliance obligations on out-of-state producers may face heightened judicial scrutiny, particularly where those laws require participation regardless of physical nexus with the regulating state. Third, as EPR laws proliferate across jurisdictions — California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, and other states have enacted or are considering similar programs — this litigation may serve as a bellwether for future constitutional challenges nationwide.
Stakeholders, including producers, brand owners, trade associations, state environmental regulators and producer responsibility organizations should closely monitor this case. Discovery is expected to proceed through mid-2026, with dispositive motions likely to follow.
For more information on these issues, contact the authors or their colleagues at McGuireWoods’ Product Liability & Mass Tort Practice Group.