The decision on August 27, 2026 in NAW v Feldon, the case challenging the Oregon Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) packaging law, looks, on a quick read, like a clean sweep for the state at the trial court level.

This comes after the court initially granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiff NAW and subsequently conducted a multiday trial and post-trial briefing on their dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process constitutional claims.

The Court started its decision with a broad statement of principles: 1) citing a case for the proposition that if a company chooses to sell products in certain states, it then must comply with the laws of those states, and 2) a general statement of the benefits that come with state policy experimentation along with a specific discussion of Oregon’s history on the topic of recycling.

The Court then rejected both constitutional challenges on a mix of grounds. As to the dormant Commerce Clause (which prevents states from impeding interstate commerce in certain ways) the Court found that the law was not protectionist, standing prevented NAW from bringing a challenge against a “small producer” exemption and there was insufficient evidence of discriminatory effects. The Court also rejected a claim that user fees were unreasonably disproportionate to the costs of the program and found that the program did not burden interstate commerce.

Similar outcome on due process. That claim argued that the law improperly delegated regulatory power to a private entity (the PRO in EPR parlance) and that there were insufficient safeguards in the fee-setting process. The Court rejected both of those arguments finding that the delegation did not violate due process and there were sufficient safeguards in place to comply with due process, to the extent a deprivation occurred.

This is obviously a very high-level analysis. Also, there are some subtleties and close calls (at least one specifically noted in the decision). I am sure other states at earlier stages of the EPR development process will take note of this analysis as they build their programs. Appellate review is also quite likely.

One initial status issue jumps out. The Court issued an injunction in favor of NAW (later clarified to apply to certain NAW member companies), based, in part, on NAW’s likelihood of success. There is no mention of the injunction status in the opinion or in the docket at the time of the decision. I expect that will be the subject of motion practice, particularly in light of the high potential for an appeal, so it is something to watch if you are impacted by that injunction.