The injunction blocking Oregon from collecting plastic packaging fees from one trade group’s members won’t apply to four others, at least not yet.
A federal judge on April 1 denied intervention motions from four industry associations seeking to join National Association of Wholesaler-Distributor’s (NAW) preliminary injunction of Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act, ruling that the case is too far along and the July trial date too close to consider new parties.
The decision, combined with a separate clarification order issued April 6, tightens the boundaries of who the existing injunction actually protects and puts everyone else back on the enforcement clock.
US District Judge Michael H. Simon turned away intervention bids from the American Forest & Paper Association, Oregon Business and Industry, Northwest Grocery Retail Association and Food Northwest, finding that allowing the parties to intervene at this late stage would either prejudice the state’s ability to prepare for trial or force a delay the court was unwilling to accept, court documents show.
“The addition of a new party…will necessarily expand the scope of the case,” which would either prejudice DEQ’s ability to litigate on the current timeline “or require the Court to move the trial date,” the judge stated.
The court called it a “catch-22,” denying all intervention motions outright and finding the organizations’ motions to join the preliminary injunction as moot.
Oregon’s attempt to undo the injunction altogether didn’t fare any better. The state had separately moved for reconsideration on two grounds: that new evidence about the breadth of NAW’s membership justified a second look, and that the court had overlooked substantial evidence of harm to small businesses, cities and residents. Simon rejected both in the April 6 order.
On the membership question, the court found that DEQ had never actually tried to obtain NAW’s current member list. There was no expedited discovery request and no evidentiary hearing, court records show.
“That the information is evolving, however, does not relieve Defendant of her obligation to attempt diligently to discover it at a specific point in time. Because Defendant could have earlier discovered the breadth of NAW’s membership, she could also have earlier discovered the effect of the injunction on the program,” Simon said.
The fact that membership fluctuates didn’t excuse the agency from making the attempt.
On the harm question, Simon acknowledged he hadn’t made express findings on every harm DEQ raised, but said he wasn’t required. The balance had already been weighed. “A motion for reconsideration is not a mechanism to get a ‘do over’ to try different arguments,” he said.
The agency acknowledged in its own brief that fee receipts collected before the March 6 deadline were “thankfully sufficient to carry the program through July,” the same month trial is scheduled to begin. Simon wrote that from the outset that moving quickly to trial would blunt the harm. DEQ’s own filing confirmed it.
The April 6 order also drew a hard line on who the existing injunction actually covers.
Simon clarified that protection extends only to NAW members that joined prior to February 6, 2026, citing other federal courts that have limited associational relief to members at the time an injunction is entered.
The move came after DEQ raised concerns that producers were approaching the agency claiming NAW membership to avoid enforcement while the organization’s membership list continued to shift.
Members that joined NAW after Feb. 6 remain subject to Oregon’s EPR fees. Organizations seeking their own relief will need to file individual lawsuits.
