Last week, a federal judge in Portland handed down one of the more consequential recycling-policy rulings of the year — and it happened right here in Oregon, our home state since 1977.

On August 27, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon ruled in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon that Oregon's Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act — the state's extended producer responsibility (EPR) packaging law — does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, due process, or the private-nondelegation doctrine. The 71-page decision followed a five-day bench trial and reverses the same court's own preliminary injunction from this past February. Trade coverage is calling it the first time a federal trial court has upheld a state EPR packaging statute against a full constitutional challenge. NAW has indicated it's reviewing an appeal.

For those of us who supply and service compaction and recycling equipment, this matters beyond the legal trivia. EPR laws redirect real money toward producer-funded recycling infrastructure — which tends to mean more MRF investment, more sorting capacity, and steadier demand for the compactors, balers, and chute systems that move material through the system. Similar EPR challenges are pending in California and Colorado, and how those cases land will shape equipment demand up and down the West Coast for years to come.

We don't have a dog in the litigation itself. But whichever way these rulings go, they change what our customers are building toward — so we're watching this one closely.

— from the CARE team, PNW waste equipment since 1977 (www.waste-equipment.com) 

Source: Packaging Dive, "Oregon federal court upholds EPR law" (Aug 27, 2026): https://www.packagingdive.com/news/oregon-epr-law-naw-constitution-judge-ruling/829036/