A 17 state coalition, that includes the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) as the sole business plaintiff, has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to block enforcement of California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, known as SB 54, while the coalition’s constitutional challenge proceeds. Alongside the motion, the coalition filed an amended complaint.
NAW is asking the court to enjoin California’s Department of Resources Recycling & Recovery and the Circular Action Alliance from enforcing SB. 54 until the court has ruled on the constitutionality of the law. Businesses face significant compliance costs under SB 54, despite the rules being used to calculate those costs remaining undefined, even to the state agency responsible for enforcing them. The motion for preliminary injunction argues companies should not be forced to comply with requirements that regulators themselves have not yet finalized. The motion also argues California cannot credibly claim it would be harmed by granting injunctive relief.
“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, president and chief executive officer of NAW. “We’re asking the court to stop enforcement before businesses and consumers are forced to pay for something California hasn’t shown is achievable.”
In addition, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that argues the law is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause because it imposes sweeping obligations without telling businesses how to meet them. Terms as basic as “covered material” and “recyclable” are never defined in a way a company can apply – and the 2032 recyclability mandate incorporates standards that a federal court has already preliminarily enjoined as unconstitutionally vague in the challenge to California’s “chasing arrows” labeling law, SB 343. Cal. League of Food Prods. v. Bonta, No. 3:26-cv-01675, 2026 WL 2055589 (S.D. Cal. July 14, 2026). Businesses are left to guess at what compliance requires, with penalties riding on the answer.
“Earlier this summer, a federal judge blocked California from enforcing SB 343, the “chasing arrows” recycling labeling law,” said Brian Wild, chief government relations officer, NAW. “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.”
NAW also argues SB 54 violates the U.S. Constitution by:
- Discriminating against and unduly burdening interstate commerce, in part by directly affecting the flow of goods through the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach–two of the largest ports in the country by trade tonnage.
- 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 with no adequate oversight, in violation of due process.
California’s SB 54 regulations took effect May 1, 2026.
This filing follows a February 2026 federal court ruling in Oregon that granted NAW’s members a preliminary injunction against a structurally similar EPR law, the first such ruling against a state EPR law in the country. That case went to trial in July 2026 and is currently awaiting a decision following post-trial briefing. NAW separately filed suit challenging Colorado’s EPR law in July 2026.
Published September 2026
