On Aug. 27, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act does not violate the Due Process Clause or the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Oregon’s RMA, which creates a statewide producer-funded packaging extended producer responsibility program, was enacted in 2021.
As mentioned in the September issue of BedTimes (“In Overdrive: An ISPA Advocacy Update” by International Sleep Products Association President Alison Keane), National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) v. Feldon was filed in July 2025. It argued several points against the RMA, including that Oregon’s EPR law violated due process by granting regulatory authority to producer responsibility organization Circular Action Alliance. NAW also argued that CAA’s fee-setting process lacked transparency and imposed excessive fees on producers.
All arguments made by NAW were struck down by the judge. ISPA urges its members to review their obligations under the RMA to ensure compliance. Companies subject to packaging EPR requirements should not assume that constitutional challenges will delay implementation or enforcement of state EPR programs. ISPA will continue to follow the case closely for potential appeals and effects on other lawsuits against state packaging EPR and other programs. NAW has filed similar lawsuits against packaging EPR programs in Colorado and California that are awaiting rulings.
