The five-day bench trial in NAW v. Feldon concluded on July 17, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Judge Michael Simon said from the bench that he had not yet decided how to rule and will issue his decision on the Recycling Modernization Act's constitutionality by the end of August 2026. Following trial, Judge Simon directed the parties to address six specific questions in post-trial briefs due July 31, 2026, and set August 3, 2026 as the deadline for any motion seeking additional oral argument. The briefing is not symmetric across the claims: the court indicated the dormant Commerce Clause issues are fully briefed and need no further submission, and the six questions are weighted to the procedural due process claim, covering whether a protected property interest exists, what process is constitutionally required, arbitration precedents, available remedies, the significance of delegating program administration to a private PRO, and whether confidentiality challenges require exhausting public records procedures first. The February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction continues to shield only NAW members pending the ruling; all other producers remain subject to registration, reporting, and fees, though DEQ agreed on July 16, 2026 not to issue pre-enforcement notices to the Lollicup putative class until at least August 31, 2026. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Source:
Oregon Capital Chronicle (July 17, 2026);
Waste360, Marissa Heffernan (July 23, 2026);
Foley and Lardner via National Law Review (July 23, 2026).
Update, October 7, 2026: the court ruled for the DEQ Director on August 27, 2026, holding that the Recycling Modernization Act does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause (ECF 205), and entered judgment for the Director on August 28, 2026 (ECF 206). NAW appealed to the Ninth Circuit on September 24, 2026 (No. 26-6404). The ruling removed the basis on which the February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction was granted, though ECF 205 mentions the injunction only in its procedural history, ECF 206 does not mention it, and no order has expressly lifted it, although a preliminary injunction ordinarily does not survive a final judgment against the party that obtained it. (Corrected October 12, 2026.)