Oregon’s EPR Trial Wraps; Ruling Due August Could Reshape Producer Laws
Oregon’s EPR trial ended July 17; ruling expected by late August 2026.
Why it matters: Legal teams advising manufacturers face potential shifts in EPR liability and regulatory compliance across multiple states from this landmark ruling.
- Trial lasted five days with 34 hours of testimony before U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon.
- Plaintiffs challenged Oregon's Extended Producer Responsibility law on Commerce Clause (limits on state laws affecting interstate commerce) and Due Process (fair legal process) grounds.
- A preliminary injunction paused enforcement against plaintiffs since February 6, 2026.
- Post-trial briefs due July 31; ruling expected by late August 2026, with impact on at least seven states enforcing or considering similar EPR laws.
The trial in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon ended on July 17, 2026, following a five-day hearing with 34 hours of testimony in Portland, Oregon. U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon presided over the case challenging Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA), a pioneering Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) statute.
The plaintiffs, including the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), argue that Oregon's law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, which limits states from regulating commerce beyond their borders, and the Due Process Clause, requiring fair and reasonable government action. NAW contends that the RMA unfairly imposes broad costs on producers for plastic recycling obligations.
On February 6, 2026, the court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality from enforcing the RMA against the plaintiffs. Judge Simon acknowledged the complexity and high stakes, stating, "I truly have not made up my mind on what to do and how to analyze this problem and what conclusion to reach."
Attorney Alexandra Ward of Holland & Knight highlighted the ruling's significance: "This is the first major litigation addressing EPR laws, setting precedent for seven states—including California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington—that have enacted similar regulations." Legal experts anticipate this ruling will clarify constitutional limits on states’ ability to impose packaging and recycling costs on producers.
Another environmental law scholar, Professor Emily C. Harrison of Portland State University, noted: "The court's decision will provide valuable guidance on the balance between state environmental goals and constitutional protections, shaping EPR frameworks nationwide."
Legal counsel for manufacturers and corporate compliance teams should prepare for the potential ripple effects. The ruling may redefine producer accountability for recycling costs and enforcement mechanisms. Post-trial briefs are due July 31, with Judge Simon’s final decision expected by late August 2026.
By the numbers:
- 5 days and 34 hours of testimony — length of trial held July 13-17, 2026
- February 6, 2026 — date of court’s preliminary injunction halting EPR enforcement against plaintiffs
- July 31, 2026 — deadline for post-trial briefs with ruling anticipated in late August 2026
Yes, but: The court has not yet issued its ruling, and Judge Simon expressed uncertainty about the legal conclusions, so outcomes remain open-ended.
What's next: Post-trial briefs are due July 31, with a final ruling expected by late August 2026 that will influence EPR regulations in multiple states.