Judge Michael Simon declined oral argument on August 4, 2026 and ordered five-page supplemental briefs on a single question: whether the Recycling Modernization Act’s small producer exemption for certain Oregon public bodies, at ORS 459A.863(32)(b) and ORS 459A.872(1), is facially discriminatory under the Dormant Commerce Clause. Oregon’s brief was due August 7 and NAW’s response August 10. Separately, Oregon raised Pullman and Burford abstention for the first time in post-trial briefing, and the court did not ask for further briefing on it.
No decision has issued as of August 16, 2026. What this means for you: nothing changes today. The February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction still covers only companies that were NAW members on that date, and every other producer remains fully obligated. A narrowed question suggests the court considers the due process and delegation record complete, but it is not a signal about the outcome. Source:
Bergeson & Campbell (August 6, 2026).
Update, October 7, 2026: the court ruled for the DEQ Director on August 27, 2026, holding that the Recycling Modernization Act does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause (ECF 205). On the question narrowed here, it rejected the facial discrimination theory against the public body exemption at ORS 459A.863(32)(b) on standing, zone of interests, and similarly situated grounds. Judgment was entered for the Director on August 28, 2026 (ECF 206), and NAW appealed to the Ninth Circuit on September 24, 2026 (No. 26-6404). The ruling removed the basis on which the February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction was granted, though neither ECF 205 nor ECF 206 mentions the injunction and no order has expressly lifted it.