Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 31 AUGUST 2026

Judge Upholds Oregon EPR Program

A federal judge has ruled on a constitutional challenge to Oregon's Extended Producer Responsibility program for plastics and packaging, addressing claims under the Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause. The decision carries significant implications for similar EPR programs facing legal challenges in California, Colorado, and other states that have enacted comprehensive producer responsibility legislation.

United StatesEnvironment

On August 27, 2026, Judge Michael H. Simon issued a Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law (the Decision) in the bench trial for National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, holding that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program, run by the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) Circular Action Alliance (CAA), does not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This decision stems from a challenge brought by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), alleging legal and procedural deficiencies against Oregon’s EPR program. This decision is likely to shape ongoing litigation involving other state EPR programs, including current challenges to California’s EPR program.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from