�鶹ֱ��

Last week, the constitutional collision over extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws reached a crescendo in the District of Oregon.[1] Starting on July 13, 2026, five days and approximately 34 hours of testimony ensued during the bench trial in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon conducted before U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon. This is the first time a federal court has tested the constitutionality of an EPR statute on a full evidentiary record. The case is a bellwether, not merely for Oregon, but for every state that has staked its recycling future on the EPR model.

The trial itself was broad in scope. Industry representatives, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) staff, and expert witnesses testified at length about how Oregon’s EPR law — the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) — impacts interstate supply chains from producer identification and packaging data reporting to fee calculation and regional distribution networks. National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) pressed two constitutional claims: that the RMA violates the Dormant Commerce Clause by imposing disproportionate burdens on out-of-state businesses, and that it violates the Due Process Clause by delegating quasi-governmental authority to a private Producer Responsibility Organization without adequate procedural safeguards.

What did the court signal? While predicting judicial outcomes is often guesswork, the court’s statements and post-trial orders provide some clues. For one, at the conclusion of the trial on Friday, Judge Simon said, “I truly have not made up my mind on what to do and how to analyze this problem and what conclusion to reach.” Judge Simon further advised that the Dormant Commerce Clause issues have been fully briefed and require no additional submissions. He posed six questions focused exclusively on procedural due process, including whether a constitutionally protected property interest is at stake, what process is constitutionally required, and the appropriate remedy if the producer agreement is unconstitutional but the RMA is otherwise lawful.

The inference is difficult to ignore. A court that needs more briefing on due process but none on the Dormant Commerce Clause has likely made up its mind on the latter. That is not entirely unsurprising because there was considerable trial testimony on the burdens on interstate commerce that the Act imposes. Given that the Dormant Commerce Clause was a focus of NAW at trial, NAW may prevail on the Dormant Commerce Clause claim, but the court does not yet appear convinced of due process violations.

The timeline ahead is compressed. Post-trial briefs are due July 31. Multiple sources indicate the court expects to rule on the merits by the end of August. NAW’s counsel confirmed the urgency: “everybody wants a final answer,” and the judge “wanted to put this on such a short fuse.”[2] From case filing to final judgment in roughly 13 months, the pace to date suggests the court will prioritize a prompt ruling, although there are no guarantees.

What happens if NAW prevails on the Dormant Commerce Clause but not on due process? The structural implications are significant. Depending on how the court crafts its decision, the RMA could be invalidated or substantially reformed on Commerce Clause grounds. The six other states with EPR laws — California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington — would likely face the same constitutional scrutiny regarding burdens on interstate commerce. But critically, the delegation-to-PRO model and fee-setting structures could survive. That is an inflection point. Oregon may need to restructure how its framework touches interstate commerce without necessarily abandoning the entire EPR architecture.

The message for producers is to pay attention. The coming weeks should bring clarity; be ready and stay tuned. Note, unless you are protected by the existing preliminary injunction, which applies only to NAW members as of February 6, 2026, registration, reporting, and payment obligations under existing EPR programs are still in effect.

[1] Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws shift recycling and waste management costs from consumers and taxpayers to “producers”—typically brand owners and importers of packaged goods. Producers must join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) and pay annual fees based on the volume and type of packaging material sold into each state. Seven states have now enacted EPR laws: Oregon, California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington. Oregon was the first to move from enactment to implementation, with the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) administering programs in multiple states. The preliminary injunction issued in February 2026 applies only to NAW members as of that date; all other obligated producers remain bound by the statute.

[2]Packaging Dive (July 7, 2026).