#United States #Washington, D.C. #EPR laws #Bergeson Campbell #NAW v. Feldon

Daily Updates on the NAW v. Feldon Bench Trial

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (BC®) has committed to providing ongoing coverage and analysis of the critical bench trial between the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) and Feldon, which commenced on July 13, 2026. This case marks a pivotal moment in U.S. legal history as it is the first constitutional challenge against extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation. The actions taken in Oregon's recent Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) are at the heart of this legal tussle, bringing to light significant questions around state authority and business operations.

Key Legal Arguments

According to L. Claire Hansen, an Associate at BC, the NAW contends that Oregon's EPR program is unconstitutional based on two main arguments: violating the Due Process Clause, particularly regarding the delegation of power to the producer responsibility organization known as Circular Action Alliance (CAA), and infringing on the Commerce Clause due to its repercussions on businesses outside of Oregon. This case could set a precedent affecting how EPR is implemented nationwide.

Highlights of the First Days of the Trial

Day One: Building the Factual Record

The opening day of the trial was primarily devoted to establishing a factual foundation surrounding Oregon's EPR program as outlined in SB 582. Testimonies focused on the functionality of the program, shedding light on the roles played by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the CAA. While constitutional and administrative law issues will ultimately guide the trial's outcome, understanding the operational framework of the EPR program is crucial for all involved parties.

Day Two: Interstate Implications of the RMA

On the second day, the focus shifted to the broader implications of Oregon's RMA on interstate supply chains. The NAW laid out its case through a combination of factual and expert witness testimonies, demonstrating that the repercussions of Oregon's implementation extend well beyond state lines. The argument presented by Oregon asserts that the burdens faced by businesses are more a reflection of their decisions and execution rather than inherent flaws within the statute for the EPR program. This ongoing discourse brings forward important considerations regarding the delicate interplay between state powers and national business interests.

The Role of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

As a distinguished law firm based in Washington, D.C., Bergeson & Campbell specializes in navigating the complexities of regulations surrounding chemicals and sustainable practices, making their observations and analyses critical as this case develops. Their coverage of the NAW v. Feldon trial is essential for understanding the evolving landscape of EPR laws and their constitutional ramifications.

Access Daily Updates

For detailed information and continuous updates, interested parties can access the full archive of BC's insights on the trial at Bergeson & Campbell's website. The implications of this case extend far beyond the courtroom, potentially reshaping the future of regulatory practices concerning environmental responsibility.