A Federal Judge Ruled that Oregon’s EPR Law is Legal

On August 27, Judge Michael Simon of the US District Court for Oregon ruled against the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) in NAW v. Feldon. The trade group had sued to get Oregon's EPR law struck down as unconstitutional. The judge ruled it as constitutional, so Oregon's law stands exactly as written.

Top Takeaways for Producers

• The EPR model just passed its first full legal test. This legal battle served as a closely-watched national indicator for EPR regulations. The decision could influence ongoing legal challenges against similar recycling and producer responsibility laws in states like California and Colorado.
• "Wait and see" is no longer a viable strategy. Some producers held off on EPR compliance, hoping the courts would strike the law down before reporting. That trial has played out, and there's no longer a reason to delay. As NAW "considers its next steps in Oregon" after the ruling, EPR obligations continue in the meantime. As of now, it has not issued further updates on whether it will appeal.

• Your compliance obligations don't change. Whether you're in Oregon or another EPR state, keep registering, reporting, and paying exactly as before. This ruling, and even an appeal by NAW, doesn't pause or reduce anything. Talk to our team about getting compliant with EPR reporting today.

Why Oregon matters so much

Judge Simon’s ruling called Oregon a “pioneer in waste prevention, reuse, and recycling legislation.” Oregon was the first state to run a packaging EPR program, and this is the first US packaging EPR law to go through a complete trial. 

What NAW argued — and why it didn't work

NAW made two central arguments, and the court rejected both.

1. This law unfairly hurts out-of-state companies.

NAW claimed Oregon's law discriminates against interstate commerce. There is a constitutional rule that states can’t write laws that protect their own businesses by creating a disadvantage to companies from other states. NAW says Oregon’s law does that. However, the judge found no evidence Oregon designed the law to protect in-state businesses.

NAW also argued the fees are simply too costly to be fair with “unreasonable user fees.” They pointed to CAA collecting $145.5M in 2025 while spending only $56.5M as evidence producers were overcharged. The court accepted this as typical for a program in its second year of development. They also stated that the “‘increased costs’ on producers or ‘higher costs to consumers’ does not qualify as a substantial burden on interstate commerce.” 

‍2. Oregon handed government power to a private company.

Oregon's producer responsibility organization (PRO), Circular Action Alliance (CAA), proposes the fees producers pay.  NAW's argument is that CAA is run by producers, so competitors are effectively setting each other's fees, which they said violates due process.

The judge disagreed, because Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has final approval authority. CAA proposes, and DEQ approves.The court found DEQ genuinely scrutinized CAA's fee methodology and required changes, rather than rubber-stamping it.

This is a significant result for EPR as a policy model. Every state with a packaging EPR program uses this structure where the PRO proposes and agency approves. Had NAW won this argument, it wouldn't have just weakened Oregon's law — it would have called the entire EPR model into question nationwide.

What does this mean for producers?

Nothing changes about your compliance obligations, wherever you operate. Producers keep registering, reporting, and paying exactly as before.

Back in February, the judge issued a temporary pause, but it only covered companies that were NAW members as of Feb 6, 2026. That’s a small minority of producers. Joining NAW later didn’t help. Everyone else has been fully obligated this whole time. 

Does this affect other EPR states?

This ruling is legally binding in Oregon only. Obligations in California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, and Maine haven't changed. But the reasoning carries weight beyond Oregon's borders. States with their own active EPR lawsuits, including California, are likely to point to this decision, particularly its finding that the PRO-with-agency-oversight model is constitutionally sound.

The result of this full trial is a 71-page, well-reasoned decision — not the final word (a formal final judgment should follow shortly), but a significant one. As the judge noted, if anyone wants a single national EPR standard instead of a state-by-state patchwork, that's a question for Congress, not the courts.

Will NAW appeal? 

NAW has not yet provided a formal update about filing an appeal. In response to the ruling, NAW announced that they will continue to challenge EPR laws and are reviewing options for next steps. Given that they disagree with the outcome of this trial, it’s likely that they will appeal. In their words, they were “disappointed” but “prepared for it.” 

In the meantime, Oregon EPR law is upheld, and the injunction that protected NAW and its members from EPR enforcement is now dissolved. This means that NAW members should comply with packaging regulations like all other obligated producers.

FAQs

Does this apply to companies that already joined the lawsuit? 

A February 2026 order temporarily paused obligations, but only for companies that were NAW members as of February 6, 2026 – a small share of producers. If you weren't an NAW member by that date, your obligations were never paused and nothing is owed retroactively. What came out on August 27 is the court's written reasoning; the formal paperwork ending the February pause should follow shortly. If you were an NAW member covered by that pause, talk to your legal counsel about next steps.

Is this the end of the legal challenge? 

No, NAW will likely appeal. Following Judge Simon’s ruling, NAW has responded: “NAW remains committed to challenging these unconstitutional laws.” Separate lawsuits are also proceeding in other states, including California and Colorado, raising different arguments this ruling doesn't address. Regardless, EPR obligations continue in the meantime.

Will Oregon's fees actually go down? 

Possibly, but it's not guaranteed. CAA has forecast that its 2025 surplus could lower fees in 2026 and 2027, but they have not committed to this, nor has the court required it.

What does this mean if I operate in California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, or Washington? 

Your obligations are unchanged today. What matters for you is the precedent: the core structure each state's program uses – a PRO proposing fees with a state agency approving them – just survived its first full legal test. 

‍