Understanding the Feb. 6 Court Ruling in Oregon: What Interest Holders Need to Know

This blog post was written by Kim Holmes, executive director, Oregon, at Circular Action Alliance (CAA)

Last Friday, Feb. 6, 2026, the U.S. District Court in Oregon dismissed multiple claims against the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and issued a narrow preliminary injunction in the National Association of Wholesaler‑Distributors (NAW) lawsuit challenging Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act (RMA). This narrow injunction temporarily pauses DEQ enforcement of the RMA against producers who are members of NAW while the case proceeds, with a full hearing scheduled for July 2026.

While CAA is not a party to this lawsuit, we are closely monitoring developments. Our focus remains the same: continuing to implement Oregon’s RMA and other Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs that move us toward a more circular, effective recycling system. At this time, nothing changes in CAA’s operations or in how we are engaging with producers and other interest holders.

You can see more in DEQ’s recent press release, and below are answers to some of the most common questions we’re hearing.

Is Circular Action Alliance a defendant in this lawsuit?

No.

Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is not a defendant in the lawsuit.

Should producers register, report and pay as usual?

Yes.

The RMA remains in effect. Based on current DEQ direction and the approved RMA framework, all registration, reporting and fee processes continue unchanged for obligated producers. The injunction does not pause or alter RMA requirements for the vast majority of producers.

CAA continues implementing the program as outlined in the approved RMA framework. That includes maintaining all producer-facing timelines and support resources as planned, including registration, reporting, invoicing and payment schedules, and other implementation activities administered by CAA.

What about NAW members? Do they still have to register, report and pay?

Our understanding is that the preliminary injunction temporarily limits enforcement actions by DEQ with respect to NAW and its members. Since CAA’s role is not enforcement but program implementation and producer support, our work continues exactly as planned. Based on our understanding of the ruling, the injunction does not address or alter CAA’s implementation activities under the RMA, and there are no changes to how we are operating or engaging with producers.

Each company should consult its own legal counsel to determine how the injunction affects its specific obligations, if at all.

Does this injunction stop the RMA program for everyone?

No.

The RMA remains in effect. The injunction is narrow and applies exclusively to NAW and its members. Our understanding is that nothing in the order directs CAA to stop carrying out its responsibilities or supporting producers in meeting theirs.

Is CAA slowing down or suspending operations in Oregon?

No.

CAA’s work continues uninterrupted and, based on the information currently available, we do not anticipate delays. We remain fully focused on meeting our obligation to implement the RMA, support producers, coordinate with service providers and prepare the system changes that will benefit communities across Oregon.

Does the injunction affect payments to service providers?

No.

Our reimbursement and financial processes remain in place, and we are continuing to operate on our established schedule as outlined in the Oregon program plan approved by DEQ. We do not anticipate changes related to this narrow injunction.

Will this delay any upcoming RMA milestones or system changes?

Based on the information currently available, we do not anticipate delays. Program implementation work continues on the same timeline outlined in our Oregon program plan approved by DEQ. Any shift in timing would come from DEQ, not from the injunction itself. No such changes have been announced.

Is this lawsuit an indication that the RMA may be overturned?

A preliminary injunction remains in place while the court considers the underlying claims. The RMA continues to be in effect during the litigation, and CAA is proceeding with implementation consistent with DEQ direction and the approved program plan.

How will this lawsuit impact packaging EPR programs in other states?

Challenges like this can arise as new, transformative legislation is implemented. While we are monitoring the case in Oregon closely, at this time, this development has no impact on CAA’s work in other states. Implementation continues as planned, and our focus remains on helping producers comply with EPR laws, delivering harmonized, best-in-class compliance services, and working with governments, businesses, and communities to reduce waste and recycle more.