Federal Court Upholds Oregon's Producer Responsibility Law
A federal court has rejected dormant Commerce Clause and due process challenges to Oregon's plastics recycling law, a key test case for similar extended producer responsibility programs nationwide.
In the first federal court test of a state extended producer responsibility (EPR) law, a judge has upheld Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA). The ruling in National Ass’n of Wholesale Distributers v. Feldon rejected industry claims that the law violates the US Constitution's dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause. This decision is significant for businesses nationwide as several other states, including California, Colorado, and Washington, have enacted similar product-stewardship laws, and this case provides insight into how those statutes may withstand legal challenges.
The court found the plaintiffs failed to show the RMA discriminates against interstate commerce or that its compliance fees were unreasonable. It also dismissed the due process argument, which centered on an alleged unconstitutional delegation of state authority to the private producer responsibility organization (PRO) tasked with implementation. The court reasoned that the state environmental agency retains ultimate authority and that producers have alternative compliance paths. While the decision may be appealed, companies subject to Oregon's EPR rules must continue to comply with the program’s registration and fee requirements.