Seventeen State Attorneys General Challenge California’s SB 54 Plastics Regulations

Two competing lawsuits now challenge California’s implementation of its Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (the “Act”).  In addition to a pending challenge by environmental groups, which contend that California has not moved quickly or forcefully enough to implement the Act’s pollution-reduction mandates, seventeen states and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (“NAW”) have now brought a separate federal challenge in the Eastern District of California arguing that the Act goes too far by projecting California’s regulatory authority beyond its borders.

The June 22, 2026, complaint names Zoe Heller, Director of CalRecycle; and Circular Action Alliance, Inc. (“CAA”), the sole producer responsibility organization (“PRO”) under the Act; as defendants, and alleges that the Act unlawfully conditions access to the California market on nationwide changes to how manufacturers, distributors, and other companies design, package, distribute, and dispose of, products using plastic or plastic-containing packaging. 

 Plaintiffs assert the Act imposes three unrealistic and economically burdensome obligations that will require costly redesigns of products, business models, and supply chains nationwide. The complaint also challenges the Act’s delegation of authority to the CAA, alleging California outsourced legislative, regulatory, fee-setting, and enforcement power to an unelected private organization.  Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating the Act and enjoining Director Heller and the CAA from implementing or enforcing it, asserting the following claims:

•  Violations of the Commerce Clause;
• Violation of Due Process and Horizontal Separation of Powers;
• Violation of the Import-Export Clause;
• Impermissible Content-Based Speech Restriction in Violation of the U.S. and California Constitutions;
• Violation of the Prohibition on Compelled Speech and Association; and
• Violation of both the U.S. and California Constitution' Nondelegation Doctrines.