A 17-state coalition led by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) has asked a federal court to block enforcement of California’s SB 54 packaging EPR law while its constitutional challenge to the statute moves forward.
The motion for preliminary injunction, filed with an amended complaint in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California, asks the court to bar CalRecycle and the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) from enforcing SB 54 until the underlying constitutionality claims are resolved. NAW is the sole business plaintiff in the 17-state coalition.
The motion argues businesses are being forced to comply with requirements regulators themselves haven’t finished defining. Costs tied to SB 54 compliance remain undefined even to CalRecycle, the agency responsible for enforcing the law, according to the filing.
NAW also argues California can’t credibly claim it would be harmed by an injunction.
“SB 54 piles new problems on top of an already structurally problematic model. California’s own data shows most of the material this law regulates can’t meet the vague ‘recyclability’ standard it demands,” said Eric Hoplin, NAW’s president and CEO, in a statement. “We’re asking the court to stop enforcement before businesses and consumers are forced to pay for something California hasn’t shown is achievable.”
Vagueness relies on SB 343 ruling
The amended complaint argues SB 54 is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause, saying core terms like “covered material” and “recyclable” are never defined in a way a company can apply.
The 2032 recyclability mandate incorporates standards a federal court has already preliminarily enjoined as unconstitutionally vague in a separate challenge to California’s “chasing arrows” labeling law, SB 343.
Environmental groups have since moved to intervene in that case, arguing the injunction doesn’t resolve the underlying labeling questions.
“Earlier this summer, a federal judge blocked California from enforcing SB 343, the ‘chasing arrows’ recycling labeling law,” said Brian Wild, NAW’s chief government relations officer, in a statement. “SB 54 relies on the same definition of recyclability, so we are asking the court to come to the same conclusion and enjoin SB 54 as well.”
Five constitutional claims
Beyond vagueness, NAW argues SB 54 violates the US Constitution by:
- Discriminating against and unduly burdening interstate commerce, including by affecting the flow of goods through the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach
- Imposing an effective tax on goods imported from other states, in violation of the Import-Export Clause
- Compelling businesses to associate with and fund CAA’s speech while restricting their own, in violation of the First Amendment
- Reaching beyond California’s borders to regulate conduct occurring entirely in other states
- Delegating fee-setting authority to a private, financially interested organization without adequate oversight, in violation of due process
SB 54’s regulations, approved by CalRecycle in May, took effect May 1, 2026.
The California filing follows a February 2026 ruling in Oregon, where a federal court granted NAW’s members a preliminary injunction against that state’s EPR law. That case went to trial in July 2026 and is awaiting a decision following a post-trial briefing.
NAW separately sued to challenge Colorado’s EPR law in July 2026.
