This week, 17 state attorneys general and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors filed suit in the Eastern District of California, asking a federal court to strike down California's plastic packaging law as unconstitutional.

The complaint, filed June 22, challenges the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, commonly known as SB 54. Enacted in 2022, the law mandates that by 2032, all single-use packaging and plastic food serviceware sold, distributed, or imported in or into California must be recyclable or compostable. It also imposes interim source-reduction targets (a 25 percent reduction by weight and by plastic component by 2032), escalating recycling-rate mandates (30 percent by 2028, 40 percent by 2030, and 65 percent by 2032), and a series of fees on "producers" administered by Circular Action Alliance (the sole producer responsibility organization designated by CalRecycle).

According to the complaint, those mandates "condition[] access to California markets on revolutionary changes to the way manufacturers, distributors and companies (large and small) design and package their products." The plaintiffs allege that the Act's definition of "covered material" includes not only plastic packaging but also glass, ceramic, metal, paper, fiber, and wood single-use packaging, which reaches "almost all aspects of the economy," including products never sold, used, or disposed of in California.

The complaint further asserts that the Act runs afoul of the Commerce Clause (by discriminating against and substantially burdening interstate commerce and imposing unfairly apportioned taxes), the Import-Export Clause, the First Amendment and the California Constitution (by barring producers from disclosing the Act's costs on receipts and forcing them to join and fund CAA), the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (by reaching conduct outside California's borders), and the federal and state nondelegation doctrines (by giving core legislative and enforcement powers to CAA) .

The complaint also takes aim at the Act's prohibition on disclosing producer-responsibility fees as a separate line item on receipts or invoices, arguing the restriction censors "core political speech" intended to "galvanize political support for a repeal or amendment of the Act" and to "forestall the adoption of similar EPR regimes" in states considering their enactment.

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Act and its implementing regulations are invalid, along with a permanent injunction barring CalRecycle and CAA from enforcing them.

The suit is a significant constitutional challenge and arrives as other states have enacted similar packaging EPR laws and weigh comparable legislation.

State of Nebraska et al. v. Heller et al., No. 2:26-at-01047 (E.D. Cal.).