A federal judge on Thursday upheld Oregon’s plastic pollution and recycling program, the first court ruling on the legality of state laws designed to hold producers responsible for the cost of dealing with their waste.
What happened: Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon rejected arguments from the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors in ruling that Oregon’s landmark extended producer responsibility, or EPR, program does not violate the Constitution.
In his decision, Simon, an Obama appointee, called Oregon “a pioneer in waste prevention, reuse, and recycling legislation” that “continues to show innovative leadership toward solving serious local, national, and even international problems caused by plastic and other forms of waste and packaging pollution.”
Why it matters: The ruling marks the first judicial validation of an approach that Democrat-led states are increasingly turning to as a way of holding plastics producers accountable for their single-use plastic and other waste. Seven states — Oregon, California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington state — currently have EPR laws on their books.
The backstory: Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act, which took effect January 2022, was the first EPR law in the nation to take effect, requiring producers to join a “producer responsibility organization” and pay fees covering the end-of-life costs of their products. Like five of the other states with EPR schemes, Oregon handed implementation to the D.C.-based Circular Action Alliance.
NAW, which lobbies for more than 30,000 wholesale distribution companies, sued Oregon last July, the first challenge of its kind. The group argued the law places excessive burdens on companies and unconstitutionally delegates regulatory power to the alliance, a private entity controlled by industry competitors.
In February, Simon handed NAW an early win, blocking Oregon from enforcing the law against the group’s members while the case proceeded. NAW has since filed similar complaints against Colorado and California, where Republican attorneys general are leading litigation.
More on the ruling: Simon rejected both of NAW’s remaining claims, allowing the law to remain in effect.
He found Oregon’s law does not violate the Commerce Clause because it treats in-state and out-of-state producers identically, and that challengers couldn’t show that the law posed a substantial burden to them.
On the delegation claim, Simon found the Circular Action Alliance “plays an advisory role” while the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality retains ultimate decision-making authority.
Reaction: NAW said in a statement it “strongly disagrees with the district court’s decision,” and “is reviewing its options for next steps.”
Katie Romano, spokesperson for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, said the department “is aware” of the decision and will continue implementation.”
Anja Brandon, the Ocean Conservancy’s director of plastics policy, said she’ll “be celebrating” the win.
“This decision affirms that states have every right to innovate to solve the plastic pollution crisis,” Brandon said in a statement. “It is not only a victory in the fight to end plastic pollution, but a victory for our ocean and a great day to be an Oregonian.”