Federal Court Upholds Oregon Packaging EPR Law
A first-of-its-kind ruling rejected dormant Commerce Clause and due process challenges, bolstering similar producer-pays recycling laws in California and Colorado.
A U.S. District Court in Oregon has upheld the state's Recycling Modernization Act, rejecting claims that the landmark Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law violates the dormant Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause. The ruling is the first of its kind to address the constitutionality of a comprehensive packaging EPR statute in the United States. The plaintiff, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, argued the law discriminated against interstate commerce and improperly delegated regulatory authority to a private producer-responsibility organization.
Citing the Supreme Court's recent guidance in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the court found the law's burdens on interstate commerce were not "clearly excessive" compared to Oregon's legitimate local interests in waste management. It also held that the state's environmental agency retained sufficient oversight over the private organization. This decision provides significant persuasive authority for the defense of similar, and even more sweeping, EPR laws currently facing legal challenges in California and Colorado. Counsel should monitor for an expected appeal to the Ninth Circuit and watch how courts in the parallel cases address this new precedent.