A federal judge has ruled against the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors in its constitutional challenge to Oregon’s Extended Producer Responsibility packaging law.

U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon issued his decision Aug. 27 in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, holding that Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act, also known as the Recycling Modernization Act (RMA), does not violate either the dormant Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The decision followed a five-day bench trial held July 13-17 in Portland, where NAW challenged the law’s structure and its impact on distributors operating across interstate supply chains.

Oregon’s RMA is an EPR law designed to shift end-of-life recycling costs for packaging and related covered products to entities defined as “producers.” The law requires covered producers to register with and join a producer responsibility organization, report covered product volumes and pay membership fees based on those volumes.

NAW — with testimony from distributor members of the association — argued that the RMA burdens interstate commerce by imposing costs and compliance obligations on distributors that operate in the middle of the supply chain, often with limited control over packaging design or the ultimate disposition of products. NAW also argued that the law delegates substantial authority to Circular Action Alliance, a private producer responsibility organization, without sufficient oversight or procedural safeguards for businesses challenging fee assessments.

Simon rejected NAW’s remaining claims after trial. On the dormant Commerce Clause issue, the court found that NAW did not show that the RMA discriminates against interstate commerce, imposes an unconstitutional user fee or places a burden on interstate commerce that is clearly excessive in relation to Oregon’s stated local benefits.

On due process, the court found that Oregon’s law does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of regulatory authority to a private entity and that the law provides sufficient process tied to fee assessment and enforcement.

The ruling comes after Simon previously granted NAW members preliminary injunctive relief in February, finding at the time that “serious questions” existed on NAW’s dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause claims. That preliminary injunction had blocked enforcement of the RMA against NAW and its members while the case proceeded to trial.

Responding to the ruling, NAW said Aug. 28 that it “strongly disagrees” with the decision and is reviewing its options for next steps.

“The district court’s ruling is not the final word,” NAW said in its statement. “NAW remains committed to challenging these unconstitutional laws and protecting businesses from regulatory schemes that impose mandatory costs without adequate accountability or meaningful recourse.”

NAW said the ruling does not change its position that EPR laws like Oregon’s are unconstitutional. The association said members testified at trial that they received invoices months after the underlying sales occurred, based on rates they could not predict or verify.

The Oregon ruling is the latest development in NAW’s broader legal effort around state EPR mandates. NAW has also joined a multistate lawsuit challenging California’s SB 54 packaging EPR law and, on July 30, filed a separate federal lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction against Colorado’s Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act.

Those cases remain pending.

MDM Analysis
For distributors, the Oregon ruling underscores that EPR remains a live regulatory issue rather than a settled one. Even where courts allow state laws to proceed, the core business concern is unchanged: distributors may face producer registration, reporting and fee obligations for products whose packaging they did not design and may not control. 

The bigger takeaway is the potential for a state-by-state compliance patchwork. Distributors should monitor Oregon implementation, NAW’s potential next steps and the Colorado and California cases, as each could shape how far EPR obligations reach into wholesale distribution supply chains.

Learn more about NAW’s Legal Policy Center here.