Photo of Chelsey Noble

Chelsey Noble

Subscribe to Chelsey Noble's Posts

Chelsey focuses her practice on environmental law, specifically on natural resources. She supports clients from diverse industries in adhering to environmental laws and regulations. Chelsey provides creative and strategic counsel in litigation and transactional matters and conducts thorough due diligence.

Contact:Read more about Chelsey Noble

Key Takeaways

  • The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors filed another lawsuit against a state extended producer responsibility program, challenging Colorado’s Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act (House Bill 22-1355).
  • In addition to challenging the law’s constitutionality, the lawsuit targets practical compliance issues such as itemizing EPR costs on invoices, fee dispute resolution, and mandatory participation in the state’s producer responsibility organization, the Circular Action Alliance.
  • A ruling is expected by the end of August 2026 in a similar lawsuit challenging Oregon’s extended producer responsibility law, while a lawsuit challenging California’s law remains ongoing.
  • Despite the lawsuits, Colorado, Oregon, California, and other states are moving forward with implementing extended producer responsibility programs.

On July 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California halted enforcement of California’s Truth in Recycling law (SB 343), which prohibits use of the “chasing arrows” symbols and other recyclability claims on product packaging unless the packaging meets California’s strict standards. Broadly speaking, under SB 343 an item may not be labeled recyclable unless 60% of California’s population has access to recycling facilities that can actually recycle the product (the 60/60 requirement), must “routinely become feedstock” used to produce new products, and must comply with additional design requirements. Plastic packaging, for example, must adhere to the Association of Plastic Recyclers’ Design Guide, while all products and packaging must be “designed to ensure” recyclability without components that “prevent” recyclability. A coalition of 20 trade associations challenged the law in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta. The court found the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their constitutional claims and granted a preliminary injunction barring the California attorney general (AG) from enforcing the law. Without the injunction, the labeling restrictions would have applied to products manufactured after October 4, 2026.Key findings by the district court suggest some of SB 343’s key components may not survive judicial review.

Key Takeaways

  • California’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) law, Senate Bill (SB) 54, is facing a broad constitutional challenge brought by 17 states and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW).
  • The lawsuit targets core features of California’s EPR framework, including source-reduction mandates, recyclability and recycling-rate targets, producer fees, the $500 million annual environmental mitigation surcharge, and mandatory participation in the Circular Action Alliance (CAA).
  • The lawsuit does not change current compliance obligations. Unless and until a court issues injunctive relief, California can enforce SB 54 deadlines, reporting requirements, and producer responsibility organization (PRO) participation obligations.
  • Companies subject to California’s EPR program should continue building systems to report covered material, evaluate packaging reduction opportunities, and document assumptions underlying their producer-status determinations while the lawsuit proceeds.
  • First-of-its-kind program: California’s Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024 (SB 707) creates a statewide extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework for apparel and textile articles.
  • July 1, 2026 deadline: “Producers” of “covered products” must register with CalRecycle-approved producer responsible organization (PRO) Landbell USA.
  • August 13, 2026 workshop: CalRecycle will seek
…

On April 23, 2026, Maine became the first U.S. state to enact an extended producer responsibility (EPR) law that targets “electronic smoking devices” used to consume nicotine and cannabis. The Act to Create a Stewardship Program for Electronic Smoking Devices and Related Products (LD 1519) applies to every company that qualifies as a “producer” of “electronic smoking devices” sold in Maine. That will likely include all major manufacturers and brand-holders of electronic smoking devices, such as e-cigarettes, vape pens, and refill cartridges.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a list of companies that are allegedly noncompliant “producers” under Oregon’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for packaging and paper products, known as the Recycling Modernization Act (RMA). The list appeared on the Circular Action Alliance’s (CAA) website on April 10, 2026. The CAA is the “Producer Responsibility Organization” that is charged with implementing EPR programs in Oregon, Colorado, and California.

On February 6, 2026, an Oregon district court issued a decision barring the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from enforcing the nation’s first extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for packaging, food serviceware, and paper products (referred to as “covered products” under Oregon’s law). The very brief order enjoins DEQ from enforcing the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) against the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) and its members, who filed their suit in July 2025, challenging the law and claiming it violated the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions.  

The regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or “forever chemicals,” was a focal point for the Biden administration. In April 2024, the administration, through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), issued two key PFAS rules. The first set nationwide drinking water standards, or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), for six types of PFAS, and the second designated PFOA and PFOS, and their salts and structural isomers, as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Both rules are currently being challenged in court, although no judicial stays were requested or are in place.

At the end of January, a federal judge issued a ruling in a high-profile environmental justice case, Louisiana v. EPA, brought by Louisiana against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The ruling temporarily blocks EPA and DOJ attempts to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act against Louisiana state agencies. Beyond that, the decision has potentially significant ramifications for the Biden administration’s ongoing environmental justice initiatives.

Introduction

On November 30, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI).[1] With this proposal, EPA aims to simplify and expand upon the 2021 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) and the original 1991 Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). The proposed LCRI outlines aggressive measures to achieve further reductions of lead in drinking water. This initiative brings to the forefront a critical question: Are the potential health benefits projected by EPA enough to justify the scope and extent of the rule and its related hefty price tag?