Federal Court Grants Partial Stay of Oregon’s Pioneering Extended Producer Responsibility Law

On February 6, the US District Court for the District of Oregon granted a preliminary injunction barring the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from enforcing the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization (RMA) Act against the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) and its members. Oregon’s program is the first packaging EPR program in the country, requiring producers of packaging material and paper products to pay fees to cover recycling costs. 

NAW filed suit in July 2025, alleging that the EPR program is unconstitutional, then moved for a preliminary injunction in November 2025 to prevent members from paying another round of fees while the case proceeds. The court found that NAW raised “serious questions” about whether the RMA violates the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause. The court also granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing claims related to Oregon’s Constitution. 

Under the RMA, producers of certain packaging, food service ware, and paper products distributed in Oregon must join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), share operational data used to set fees, and pay fees to fund statewide recycling of covered material. Oregon has approved only one PRO, the Circular Action Alliance. NAW argues that the RMA discriminates against out-of-state producers and unduly burdens interstate commerce, while also subjecting producers to binding fee assessments without adequate safe procedural safeguards or transparency into the fee-setting methodology. 

If the court’s decision stands, it could set a roadmap for future challenges of other EPR programs nationwide. Oregon is one of seven states — the others being Maine, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington — that have enacted EPR laws, with several other states developing similar legislation. This decision does not directly impact producer obligations under any of these other statewide EPR programs, but the constitutional challenges implicating the Dormant Commerce and Due Process clauses could carry negative implications for these other programs if they are eventually successful. 

In addition to paying close attention to this case, as the trial is set to begin later this summer, it will be crucial to keep a close eye on whether similar challenges crop up in these other states seeking to acquire similar short-term relief at a minimum. Likewise, states currently developing EPR laws may choose to make changes to their schemes to protect themselves from similar challenges. 

Members of the firm’s Environmental and Energy & Cleantech groups regularly monitor state and federal reform efforts and the legal challenges that arise from them.