On
August 27, 2026 Judge Michael H. Simon issued 71 pages of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in NAW v. Feldon, No. 3:25-cv-1334-SI (D. Or.), ECF 205, concluding that Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act “does not violate either the dormant Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.” This is the first ruling anywhere on the constitutionality of a packaging EPR statute decided on a full trial record.
Every theory failed. On the dormant Commerce Clause: no protectionist purpose, because NAW’s only evidence was a DEQ fiscal statement written two years after the law passed; no facial discrimination in the exemption for Oregon public bodies, on which 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, because nobody quantified the exemptions and the burden of proof was NAW’s; and no substantial burden under Pike. On due process: the court held the RMA does not force anyone to join the Circular Action Alliance, since a producer may form its own producer responsibility organization or exempt itself under the private recycling rule at ORS 459A.869(13), and separately that DEQ retains the final say over the fee methodology. The process for challenging a fee was held more than adequate, because DEQ’s civil-penalty route carries notice and cure, a hearing before an administrative law judge, commission review, an appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals, and no payment due until appeals are exhausted.
What this means for you: if you were not a NAW member on February 6, 2026, and most producers were not, nothing changes. Keep registering, reporting and paying, exactly as before. What has gone is the argument for waiting. The one open question in U.S. packaging EPR was whether a court would strike an EPR statute on constitutional grounds, and the first court to hear the full case said no.
If you were a NAW member on February 6, 2026, read this part carefully. The decision does not say what happens to your injunction. It never mentions it. There is no dissolution, no statement that it survives, and no judgment has been entered. As of August 28, 2026 nothing further had been docketed: no notice of appeal, no motion to stay, no post-judgment motions. The ruling removes the reasoning the injunction rested on, so treat continued protection as unsafe to plan around, and talk to counsel now rather than after an order issues.
Two cautions on how far this travels. It is a federal district court decision, so it binds no other court, including the Colorado and California cases. And the part doing the most work, that Oregon producers are not compelled to join CAA, rests on two features of Oregon’s statute: the private recycling exemption and an open path to forming another PRO that DEQ has never denied to anyone. A state without an equivalent off-ramp does not inherit that paragraph.
Evidence label: confirmed. The opinion was read in full. Source:
NAW v. Feldon, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, ECF 205 (D. Or. August 27, 2026), read in full; docket status from
the CourtListener docket. First reported by
Packaging Dive (August 27, 2026).