The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge to Maine’s 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases, keeping the rule in place for now and leaving untouched an April First Circuit ruling that cleared the way for enforcement.
The Center Square reported that the high court’s refusal to hear the petition means the waiting period remains in effect and the dispute heads back to the U.S. District Court in Maine for further proceedings.
Gun rights groups had asked the justices to reverse the appellate decision and declare the delay unconstitutional. The Court did not do so. The practical result is simple: buyers in Maine still face a three-day wait, and the larger Second Amendment fight is not finished.
Democratic lawmakers advanced a broader firearms bill that included the 72-hour purchase delay after an Oct. 25, 2023 shooting in Lewiston. An Army reservist opened fire in a bowling alley and a bar, killing 13 people and injuring 18 others.
Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, allowed the waiting period to become law without her signature. She said she was "conflicted" after weighing both sides of the debate.
Retailers and gun rights groups soon sued. They argued the mandate hits lawful citizens and does not track the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Maine officials defended the measure as a public safety tool aimed at reducing suicides and gun violence.
In February, U.S. District Judge Lance Walker issued a temporary injunction that stopped the waiting period from being enforced. Walker sided with the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and several Maine firearm sellers.
He called the waiting period "indiscriminate" because it applies to every firearm purchaser, whether or not the buyer poses a threat. Walker also said the plaintiffs were "likely to succeed" on the merits.
Attorney General Aaron Frey appealed. In April, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston lifted the preliminary injunction. The appellate panel ruled the requirement is likely constitutional and rejected the earlier block on enforcement.
That appellate posture is what the Supreme Court left standing when it declined review. The waiting period is again operative while the case continues in district court.
The National Rifle Association and the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine petitioned the Supreme Court. Lawyers for several Maine firearm retailers joined the effort. They asked the justices to overturn the First Circuit and hold that the waiting period violates federal constitutional protections.
The high court refused to consider the appeal at this stage. It did not issue a merits ruling in the materials described in the Center Square account. Denial of review left the First Circuit decision intact and sent the litigation back down.
Nacole Palmer, executive director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene. She pointed to state reporting and framed the delay as already effective.
"We know from reporting from the Department of Public Safety that Maine’s 72-hour waiting period has already worked to save lives from preventable gun deaths in our state."
Palmer added a second point about the law’s future in court and in practice.
"Despite the gun lobby’s best efforts, our waiting period law will continue to save lives and we expect and hope that it will continue to be upheld."
The underlying Department of Public Safety material she cited was not detailed with counts or methods in the available account. Her claim stands as an advocacy statement tied to that reported reference.
Larry Keane, senior vice president for government affairs at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, struck the opposite note. Speaking Tuesday morning on WVOM’s "Voice of Maine" talk show, he rejected any suggestion that the Supreme Court had upheld the statute on the merits.
"The case is not over."
Keane pressed the procedural point in plain terms.
"The only thing the Supreme Court decided was not to hear the appeal at this point in time. They did not make any decisions about the merits of the case. So it goes on."
He said challengers will keep pushing to overturn the waiting period. That framing matters for readers who saw headlines about the Court and assumed a final constitutional blessing. A denial of review is not a merits win for either side.
Preliminary injunctions are early-stage orders. They can pause a law while judges assess likely outcomes, harm, and the public interest. Judge Walker’s February order blocked enforcement after he found the plaintiffs likely to prevail and described the delay as indiscriminate.
The First Circuit’s April decision reversed that pause. By holding the requirement likely constitutional, the appeals court allowed Maine to apply the 72-hour wait while the case proceeds. The Supreme Court’s refusal to step in leaves that appellate result in place for now.
Next comes further proceedings in the U.S. District Court in Maine. Courts at that stage can take evidence, refine legal conclusions, and move toward a fuller judgment. Appeals can follow again. Keane’s public comments track that path: the high court closed one door without deciding the Second Amendment core of the dispute.
Supporters cast the three-day delay as a buffer against impulsive violence and suicide. Opponents cast it as a blanket burden on lawful buyers, including people who face no specific accusation of danger. Walker’s "indiscriminate" line captured the latter view at the injunction stage. The First Circuit’s later ruling captured the former enough to restore enforcement pending more litigation.
Mills’s choice to let the provision become law without a signature underscored the political tension inside Maine’s government. Lawmakers passed the broader bill through the House and Senate. The governor did not block the waiting period, yet described herself as conflicted.
None of that legislative history is a substitute for the constitutional test now back before the district court. The challengers still argue the mandate conflicts with the Second Amendment and with the historical tradition of firearm regulation. State defenders still argue the delay is a tailored safety measure. The Supreme Court did not referee that fight on the merits in this round.
Authorities and parties have not publicly settled, in the materials at hand, the full statutory citation text, the complete case caption, or a detailed written explanation from the Supreme Court beyond the reported denial of review. Investigators of the public record will look for the order date, docket identifiers, and whether the denial came without comment.
Palmer’s reference to Department of Public Safety reporting also leaves open questions about scope and method. No public breakdown of numbers tied to that claim appears in the seed account. The district court process is where factual development and legal argument can narrow those gaps under adversarial testing.
For gun owners, retailers, and regulators in Maine, the immediate rule is unchanged by the high court’s pass: the 72-hour wait applies. For the national Second Amendment bar, the signal is narrower. A circuit decision favoring the state survives for now, without a Supreme Court stamp on the underlying constitutional question.
The case returns to Judge Walker’s trial-level arena with the First Circuit’s April analysis in the background and the Supreme Court silent on the merits. Plaintiffs tied to the NRA, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and Maine firearm retailers will again press their constitutional objections. The attorney general’s office will again defend the statute’s fit with public safety aims and controlling precedent as the First Circuit read it.
That is the accountability sequence that matters after a denial of review. Lawmakers wrote a sweeping delay into state law after Lewiston. A district judge blocked it as likely unlawful. An appeals court revived it as likely lawful. The Supreme Court declined to interrupt. The trial court must now do the slower work of a fuller record and a durable judgment.
Readers should separate three different ideas that often get blurred. One is a temporary injunction. Another is an appellate stay lift paired with a likelihood holding. The third is a final merits ruling from the nation’s highest court. Only the first two have fully played out. The third has not.
When courts refuse a case, politicians and pressure groups rush to claim victory. The real test is whether constitutional limits still bind the state when the order is quiet and the waiting period stays on the books.
