The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) has filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the district court’s August 27 decision in NAW v. Feldon (Case No. 3:25-cv-01334-SI) upholding Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act, the state's Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law.
In its ruling, the district court found that few material facts were truly in dispute and that the case hinges mostly on questions of law. The Ninth Circuit reviews questions of law without deference to the district court.
NAW’s appeal focuses on two principal issues.
First, Oregon’s EPR law disrupts nationally integrated supply chains by imposing fees on wholesaler‑distributors who control neither the packaging nor the final destination of their products, forcing multistate companies to re‑engineer their operations, and in some cases route product around Oregon entirely. Worse, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) anticipated producers would recover program costs from customers in other states, and cited that as a way to reduce price impacts on Oregonians. NAW argues funding new statewide infrastructure at the expense of out-of-state wholesaler-distributors and consumers violates the dormant Commerce Clause.
Second, Oregon delegated authority to develop and run the program and to set and collect the fees producers must pay to the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), a private organization with its own business interests. CAA calculates those fees using a methodology it has designated “confidential,” and fee disputes go to binding arbitration under CAA’s mandatory contract. NAW argues this delegation violates the Due Process Clause. Furthermore, the court’s ruling cites figures showing CAA collected $145.5 million from producers and spent $56.5 million, leaving almost $90 million in excess funds.
“These laws leave distributors with three terrible options,” said Brian Wild, Chief Government Relations Officer, NAW. “They can absorb fees they can't afford on their already slim 3–5% margins, they can pass costs on to customers, or they can just stop selling into EPR states. Every one of those options raises costs for Americans.”
NAW filed suit in July 2025. In February 2026, the district court granted NAW members a preliminary injunction, the first time a court blocked enforcement of a state EPR law. The July 2026 trial was the first federal trial in the country to test an EPR law’s constitutionality.
NAW is also the sole business plaintiff in a 17-state coalition challenging California’s EPR law, and has filed a separate challenge to Colorado’s EPR law. Both cases are ongoing.
