On August 27, 2026, the District of Oregon upheld Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) in the challenge brought by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), ruling that the law does not violate either the dormant Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause.
The decision is the first ruling on the merits addressing the constitutionality of state packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws and is likely to influence ongoing litigation and future development of EPR programs nationwide.
For background on NAW's challenge to the RMA, please see our prior Client Alert.
Key Holdings
Dormant Commerce Clause
The court rejected NAW’s argument that the RMA unlawfully discriminates against interstate commerce. The court reasoned that NAW lacked standing to challenge several exemptions and failed to provide sufficient evidence that the exemptions benefited in-state businesses to the disadvantage of out-of-state businesses in a way that amounted to a constitutional violation.
The court also rejected NAW’s argument that the program’s fees imposed an excessive burden on interstate commerce. The court concluded that the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) was entitled to build a reserve during the initial development stage of a new regulatory program.
Because NAW did not demonstrate a substantial burden on interstate commerce, the court rejected NAW’s challenge under the Pike balancing test, which applies when interstate burdens outweigh local benefits.
Due Process Clause
The court concluded that Oregon did not improperly delegate governmental authority to CAA, reasoning that producers are not compelled to join CAA because they may form their own producer responsibility organization or choose to privately recycle their covered products.
The court upheld Oregon’s civil penalty enforcement mechanism, finding that the statute provides substantial procedural protections. The court noted that producers are entitled to a notice-and-cure period, a hearing before an administrative law judge, and a court appeal before penalties become final.
Likely Next Steps
Industry should monitor this challenge to see whether NAW appeals this ruling to the Ninth Circuit. NAW may consider an appeal, given that it is asserting similar claims in concurrent challenges to Colorado’s and California’s packaging EPR laws.
Impact on Industry
Compliance obligations are here to stay, at least for now
Producers should continue to comply with state packaging EPR laws because they are likely here to stay, at least in some form. Although the ruling applies only to Oregon’s EPR program, it provides states, regulators, and CAA with precedent supporting the constitutionality of EPR programs. Colorado and California, for example, allow producers to pursue independent compliance pathways and recognize certain alternative collection programs, which the court, here, found to be sufficient to remedy the alleged nondelegation of governmental authority violation. Unless reversed on appeal, this ruling is likely to become the leading authority cited by states defending packaging EPR programs from constitutional challenges.
That said, the ruling does not necessarily indicate how other courts may evaluate constitutional challenges to state EPR frameworks. Courts may reach different conclusions because of differences in statutory construction, program implementation, and the evidentiary record developed by plaintiffs.
Other states may look to Oregon’s EPR law as a blueprint
Oregon’s RMA may become the blueprint for future state EPR laws. Because the court upheld the RMA’s framework against constitutional challenges, other states contemplating EPR legislation may look to model Oregon’s EPR program. Accordingly, the ruling may trigger development of state EPR frameworks nationwide, meaning that companies may face increasingly complex compliance obligations and tight implementation timelines.
EPR Developments
We will continue to monitor litigation and regulatory developments in this space and are available to help companies assess and manage compliance obligations. Alston & Bird has extensive experience advising clients on compliance with EPR laws. Our team routinely assists companies with strategic compliance planning, producer responsibility organization engagement, and exposure mitigation. For more information, please visit our Extended Producer Responsibility page.
If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please contact one of the attorneys on our Environmental, Land Use & Natural Resources team or one of the attorneys on our Food & Beverage team.
You can subscribe to future advisories and other Alston & Bird publications by completing our publications subscription form.