U.S. District Court, District of Oregon. 3:25-cv-01334 (Judge Michael H. Simon). Filed 2025. What is challenged, where it stands, and who is actually covered by any relief granted.
Free. Updated weekly. No login required.
Facts on this page were last verified against primary sources on September 9, 2026. The EPR Atlas is re-checked weekly; this stamp moves only when a verification pass actually runs, not when the site rebuilds.
U.S. District Court, District of Oregon | 3:25-cv-01334 (Judge Michael H. Simon) | Filed 2025 verified August 28, 2026
This is a plain reading of where the case stands, not legal advice. If your exposure is material, confirm it with counsel.
The constitutionality of the Recycling Modernization Act itself, on dormant Commerce Clause and procedural due process grounds.
Decided. On August 27, 2026 Judge Simon issued 71-page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (ECF 205) holding that the Recycling Modernization Act violates neither the dormant Commerce Clause nor the Due Process Clause. All three dormant Commerce Clause theories failed: no protectionist purpose, no facial discrimination in the public body exemption (NAW also lacked standing and fell outside the zone of interests), no proven discriminatory effect from the revenue and immediate consumption exemptions, no unreasonable user fee, and no substantial burden under Pike. Both due process theories failed: the RMA does not compel joining CAA, because a producer may form its own PRO or exempt itself under the private recycling rule at ORS 459A.869(13), and DEQ retains ultimate decision-making authority over the fee methodology. Neither the opinion nor the judgment mentions the February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction. Final judgment was entered for the Director on August 28, 2026 (ECF 206), so the case is over in the district court. A notice of appeal is due by September 28, 2026 under FRAP 4(a)(1)(A), and none had been docketed as of August 31, 2026.
The February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction shields companies that were NAW members on that date and nobody else, and the August 27, 2026 decision does not say what becomes of it. Nothing has been dissolved on the docket, but the merits ruling removes the basis on which it was granted, so members should not plan around it continuing. Every other producer remains fully subject to registration, reporting, fees and DEQ enforcement, and always has been.
Every filing and order the Atlas has confirmed in this case, in order. Dates marked ahead are scheduled rather than reported.
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| 2025 | Complaint filed challenging the constitutionality of the Recycling Modernization Act. |
| February 6, 2026 | Preliminary injunction granted. It shields companies that were NAW members on this date and nobody else. |
| April 1, 2026 | Court denies motions to intervene by the American Forest and Paper Association and by a group of retail associations (Oregon Business and Industry, the Northwest Grocery Association, Food Northwest), finding them untimely and prejudicial to the expedited trial date. |
| July 13 to 17, 2026 | Five-day bench trial, roughly 34 hours of testimony. Oregon called David Allaway (DEQ), Scott Cassel (Product Stewardship Institute) and Reid Lifset (Yale); NAW called Calvin Lakhan in rebuttal. |
| July 17, 2026 | Trial concludes. Judge Simon states from the bench that he has not made up his mind, and directs the parties to address six specific questions in post-trial briefing. |
| July 31, 2026 scheduled | Post-trial briefs due. |
| August 3, 2026 scheduled | Deadline for any motion seeking additional oral argument. |
| August 4, 2026 | Court declines oral argument and orders five-page supplemental briefs on one question: whether the small producer exemption for Oregon public bodies is facially discriminatory. |
| August 28, 2026 | Final judgment entered in favor of Defendant Feldon and against NAW (ECF 206). A notice of appeal is due by September 28, 2026 under FRAP 4(a)(1)(A). |
| August 27, 2026 | Decision. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (ECF 205, 71 pages) hold that the Recycling Modernization Act violates neither the dormant Commerce Clause nor the Due Process Clause. The opinion does not address the February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction. |
Dates are drawn from court filings, orders and firm alerts as reported. Where a docket is not publicly accessible the Atlas relies on secondary reporting and says so.
Last confirmed August 28, 2026. Checked weekly against court records, filings and firm alerts. Where a docket is not publicly accessible the Atlas says so rather than implying a status was re-verified.
Every state guide carries the full fee schedule, registration deadlines, program plan status, eco-modulation detail, statute and rule text, and exemptions.