The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) has submitted an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding the 27 August judgment, which affirmed the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernisation Act.
A federal appeals court has been asked to overturn a decision upholding Oregon’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation.
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
The lower court concluded that substantive factual matters were largely undisputed and that the dispute centres on legal questions, which the appellate bench evaluates without deference to the initial ruling.
NAW contends that the statute breaches the dormant Commerce Clause by placing financial burdens on distributors that manage neither goods packaging nor final shipping destinations.
According to the plaintiff, these obligations oblige interstate enterprises to alter supply chains or circumvent the state entirely.
Furthermore, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) anticipated that regulated entities would shift programme expenses onto out-of-state buyers to shield residents from higher prices.
The legal challenge alleges a violation of the Due Process Clause resulting from the state transferring administrative oversight, fee structures, and collection duties to the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), an independent entity with its own commercial interests.
The organisation calculates mandatory payments through a formula it categorises as “confidential,” whilst obliging contributors to resolve payment disagreements through compulsory arbitration.
The litigation commenced when NAW brought the lawsuit in July 2025.
The district court issued a preliminary injunction protecting association members in February 2026, representing the initial judicial stay against state EPR enforcement, followed by a July 2026 hearing that served as the first federal constitutional trial regarding such laws.
NAW president and CEO Eric Hoplin said: “The facts we established at trial haven’t changed, and they still show Oregon’s law is unconstitutional.
“The district court reached the wrong legal conclusions, and we’re asking the Ninth Circuit to correct them.”
In addition to the Oregon action, NAW serves as the sole commercial claimant within a 17-state coalition challenging California’s EPR statute and is pursuing a separate lawsuit against Colorado’s EPR legislation, with both matters pending resolution.
