Enforcement of Oregon's EPR Law Enjoined by Federal District Court, Creating Additional Uncertainty for Producers
The new world of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) state laws may be facing big changes in the coming months. On February 6, the federal judge in National Association of Wholesaler‑Distributors v. Feldon, issued an order that enjoined the application of Oregon's EPR statute to National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) and its members.
EPR statutes have sprung up in seven major states, including Minnesota and California. At a high level, these laws shift the cost burdens of collecting, sorting, recycling, or disposing of packaging, paper goods and food service ware from local governments and taxpayers to the producers of the materials. The EPR statutes vary by state but require, among other things, producers to join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), report packaging data, and pay fees related to the covered materials that are sold or distributed in each EPR-program state.
In June 2025, NAW filed a lawsuit challenging Oregon's EPR law. The Oregon Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) was the country's first comprehensive EPR program, requiring producers of covered products to participate in a PRO and pay associated fees. NAW asserted that the RMA violates five principles: dormant commerce clause, due process clause, equal protection, unconstitutional conditions, and the state-law non-delegation doctrine. NAW sought a preliminary injunction to preclude enforcement of the Oregon law, and the state filed a motion to dismiss.
On February 6, 2026, the District Court for the District of Oregon enjoined the application of the EPR law to NAW and its members. At the same time, the Court dismissed several of NAW's claims but, importantly, it allowed NAW's claims under the dormant commerce clause and the due process clause to proceed. NAW's dormant commerce clause claim argues that the RMA has impermissible extraterritorial effects, especially for companies with multistate supply chains, and could expose companies to conflicting requirements under other state EPR programs. The due process clause claim addresses the opaque and non-negotiable PRO fees that also lack oversight through the public regulatory processes.
This injunction is the first time a federal court has paused enforcement of an EPR statute for constitutional reasons. Producers have long been concerned with the piecemeal, state-by-state EPR laws, particularly as enforceable deadlines begin while litigation is still underway in most states. This case is likely the first of many that will keep producers on their toes. Although this is a narrow injunction for now, it could be a warning sign for other states with similar EPR laws. As the EPR statutory landscape continues to shift, feel free to contact your Stinson attorney to discuss impacts and questions.
For more information on the recent federal court injunction impacting Oregon's Extended Producer Responsibility law and its implications for producers, please contact Brittany Barrientos, Andrew Davis, Megan McCurdy, Claire Williams, Ashley Crisafulli, Nathan Isom, Betsy Moedritzer or the Stinson LLP contact with whom you regularly work.
