The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to take up a challenge to Maine's 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases, allowing the law to remain in effect while litigation continues in lower courts. The high court’s decision, issued without comment, means that Maine’s law will stand for now, as the legal battle over its constitutionality proceeds.

Explainer Virginia's Legal Battles Over Gun Control, Abortion, and Redistricting Explained

The law, which requires a three-day “cooling off” period between the purchase and delivery of a firearm, was enacted in 2023 as part of a broader package of gun control measures. The legislation was passed by Democratic lawmakers in the wake of the mass shooting in Lewiston, where an Army reservist killed 13 people and injured 18 others at a bowling alley and bar. The shooting, one of the deadliest in Maine’s history, prompted renewed debate over gun laws in the state.

Governor Janet Mills, a Democrat, allowed the measure to become law without her signature, citing her conflicted feelings after considering arguments from both supporters and opponents of stricter gun regulations. Mills said she weighed the need for public safety against concerns about restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Shortly after the law was enacted, a coalition of gun rights groups and firearm retailers—including the National Rifle Association, the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, and several gun sellers—filed suit in federal court. The plaintiffs argued that the 72-hour waiting period violates the Second Amendment and is inconsistent with the nation’s historical approach to firearm regulation. They contended that the law is overly broad and applies to all gun purchasers, regardless of whether they pose a risk.

U.S. District Court Judge Lance Walker initially sided with the plaintiffs, issuing a temporary injunction that blocked the law from taking effect. In his ruling, Walker described the waiting period as “indiscriminate” and wrote that the plaintiffs were “likely to succeed” on the merits of their case. He emphasized that the law did not distinguish between high-risk and low-risk individuals, and questioned whether such a broad restriction was justified.

However, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey appealed the decision, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the injunction in April. The appellate court found that the waiting period was likely constitutional and allowed the law to take effect while the case continued. The plaintiffs then petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the First Circuit’s decision, but the justices declined to hear the case, leaving the appellate ruling in place for the time being.

Reactions From Both Sides

The Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene was welcomed by gun control advocates, who argue that waiting periods can help prevent suicides and impulsive acts of gun violence. Nacole Palmer, executive director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, said that data from the Department of Public Safety indicates the law "has already worked to save lives from preventable gun deaths in our state." Supporters of the law maintain that even a brief delay in obtaining a firearm can reduce the risk of tragedy by giving individuals time to reconsider or seek help.

Gun rights advocates, however, stressed that the Supreme Court’s decision does not resolve the underlying constitutional issues. Larry Keane, senior vice president for government affairs at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, noted that the high court’s refusal to hear the case at this stage does not mean it has upheld the law. "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," Keane said. He and other opponents of the law argue that it infringes on the rights of lawful gun purchasers and sets a troubling precedent for future firearm regulations.

With the Supreme Court declining to intervene, the case now returns to the U.S. District Court in Maine for further proceedings. The 72-hour waiting period will remain in effect as the legal challenge continues. The district court will now consider the merits of the plaintiffs’ arguments in light of the First Circuit’s ruling. Both sides are expected to present further evidence and legal arguments as the case moves forward.

The outcome of the case could have implications beyond Maine, as courts across the country continue to grapple with the scope of the Second Amendment and the constitutionality of various gun control measures. For now, Maine’s waiting period stands as part of the state’s response to gun violence, with supporters and opponents closely watching the ongoing legal battle.