Oregon EPR: District court issues preliminary injunction partially halting the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act

On February 6, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from enforcing Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) against the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) and its members.

As discussed in our prior alert, the case presents constitutional questions regarding the implementation of extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs in Oregon and beyond. The court’s ruling provides interim relief to certain affected producers while the case proceeds to trial, which is scheduled to begin on July 13, 2026.

This alert explains the court’s decision, its practical implications for NAW members and non-members, and ongoing obligations for producers under other state EPR laws.

Background

In July 2025, NAW sued in federal court challenging Oregon’s RMA, the first EPR law for packaging to take effect in the US. NAW’s complaint alleged that the law’s delegation of regulatory authority to a private producer responsibility organization, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), violated the Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. NAW cited concerns with CAA’s confidential fee-setting methodology and the use of a producer participation agreement with a mandatory arbitration provision, among others.

On November 24, 2025, NAW filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to halt enforcement of the RMA against its members while the case was litigated. Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss on separate issues.

After a hearing on February 6, 2026, the district court granted NAW’s motion preliminarily enjoining enforcement of the law against NAW and its members and granted in part the motion to dismiss.

The court’s ruling

On the motion for preliminary injunction, the court found that “serious questions go to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, there is a likelihood of irreparable injury, and the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of Plaintiff.” At the hearing, the court expressly declined to rule on the lawsuit’s likelihood of success on the merits. Ordinarily, courts must find that probability “substantial” to issue an injunction. However, the court emphasized the potential for irreparable harm to NAW members, including the risk of $25,000-per-day penalties for non-compliance with the RMA.

Accordingly, the court enjoined DEQ Director Leah Feldon from enforcing the RMA against NAW and its members pending the outcome of trial, which will commence on July 13, 2026.

On the motion to dismiss, the court dismissed without prejudice all claims against the individual members of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, leaving only Director Feldon as a defendant. The court also dismissed NAW's state constitutional claims, unconstitutional conditions claim, and equal protection claim, but preserved NAW's Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause claims. The court granted NAW leave to amend its complaint on or before February 20, 2026 to seek to revive the dismissed claims.

Scope of the preliminary injunction

Producers should carefully note the limited scope of the preliminary injunction.

First, the injunction applies only to NAW and its members; it does not apply to non-NAW producers. Non-NAW members remain subject to the RMA’s registration, reporting, and fee payment requirements, and DEQ retains full enforcement authority. The CAA’s recent guidance reinforces this, confirming its position that the RMA remains in effect and that, based on current DEQ direction and the approved RMA framework, all registration, reporting, and fee processes continue unchanged for obligated producers.

The distinction between NAW members and non-members is particularly significant for producers assessing compliance obligations. NAW represents wholesale distributors – entities that typically do not design, manufacture, or brand consumer packaging but that may nonetheless be subject to EPR compliance obligations depending on how “producer” is defined and enforced under the RMA. Notably, this decision does not extend relief to distributors outside NAW’s membership, nor does it protect other producer categories such as brand owners, licensees, manufacturers, and importers.

Second, while the injunction is limited to NAW members, DLA Piper’s Environmental and Sustainability teams are monitoring whether Oregon DEQ will also pause broader enforcement while these constitutional questions are litigated. On February 9, 2026, Oregon Business & Industry, on behalf of approximately 15 industry trade associations representing grocers, food processors, wine growers, brewers, and other industries, sent a joint letter to DEQ requesting that the agency cease enforcement of the RMA against all producers pending resolution of the litigation. The letter argues that the court's rationale for granting the preliminary injunction – that producers face imminent and irreparable harm, including unrecoverable compliance costs, competitive distortions, and the risk of steep civil penalties – applies with equal force to producers not covered by the injunction. Regulatory agencies commonly take a consistent enforcement approach when core provisions of a statute are subject to constitutional challenge, particularly where the legal issues at stake would apply broadly to all regulated parties. Producers are encouraged to monitor any announcements from DEQ regarding its enforcement posture while the litigation is pending, including for DEQ’s response to the trade associations’ letter. In the meantime, CAA’s recent guidance has confirmed that it will not slow or suspend operations in Oregon and that reimbursement and financial processes for service providers remain in place.

Third, the court indicated that, if DEQ prevails at trial, it may be able to pursue retroactive enforcement against NAW members for unpaid fees from the injunction period. The court left open the question of whether daily penalties may also be assessed retroactively.

Other state EPR obligations remain unaffected

Importantly, the preliminary injunction does not affect producer obligations under EPR laws in other states. Oregon’s RMA was the first EPR law for packaging to take effect, but California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington have enacted similar legislation with imminent or recently passed compliance deadlines.

Producers with obligations under other states’ laws should continue to comply with registration, reporting, and fee payment requirements. CAA guidance has confirmed that CAA believes this development has no impact on other states and that implementation will continue as planned, though the constitutional questions raised in Oregon may be significant for the future of EPR programs nationally.

Key takeaways

• While the preliminary injunction is in effect, NAW members are encouraged to maintain accurate documentation of covered products introduced into Oregon and monitor the litigation closely, given the potential for retroactive payment obligations if DEQ prevails at trial.
  
  
• Non-NAW members should continue to comply with RMA requirements while monitoring closely for Oregon DEQ enforcement position information.
  
  
• All parties should consider EPR obligations in other states as unchanged and in effect absent specific announcements from those states.

Next steps

The parties are engaged in expedited discovery ahead of the July 13, 2026 bench trial. NAW has leave to amend its complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies identified by the court. We will continue to monitor this litigation and provide updates as material developments occur.

DLA Piper’s Environmental and Sustainability teams are available to assist clients in evaluating the impact of this ruling on their compliance strategies and in monitoring developments in EPR programs across the US.