Twenty-five states press Supreme Court to scrap Maine’s firearm waiting period

Twenty-five states led by Montana have asked the Supreme Court to review Maine’s 72-hour gun-purchase waiting period, arguing the delay directly blocks lawful ownership after a background check clears.

Republican Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen filed a multi-state amicus brief Monday urging the high court to take the case challenging Maine’s three-day hold on firearm purchases. The filing backs a petition from attorneys for Andrea Beckwith, an advocate for victims of domestic violence, after a lower-court win for her was reversed on appeal.

The Daily Caller reported that the states contend waiting periods are unconstitutional and that Maine’s Section 2016 keeps a buyer from “keeping” a gun for days even when the required background check is already complete.

Beckwith’s lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court on August 25. The move came after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit overturned a decision by U.S. District Judge Lance E. Walker that had gone in her favor. Walker is a Trump appointee, and the dispute now sits as Beckwith v. Frey.

Similar fights over election rules and federal authority have repeatedly returned to the justices, including when a Trump-appointed judge blocked a USPS mail-in ballot rule as the Court prepared to weigh in.

States say Maine’s delay is a direct ban on possession

The Montana-led brief walks through a simple sequence. A buyer who agrees to purchase a firearm on Monday and passes the background check that same day should be able to possess it immediately. Maine’s law, the states argue, blocks that right for multiple days.

The states put it this way:

"If a person agreed to purchase a firearm on Monday, and also passed the required background check that day, she would be able to ‘keep’ (i.e., possess) the firearm the day of the purchase. But because of Section 2016, a person in Maine is unable to ‘keep’ the firearm, on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday."

They continued:

"Based on this simple hypothetical, it is clear that Section 2016 is a restriction. And even assuming there is a relevant distinction between direct and indirect restrictions on keeping arms, Section 2016’s restriction is direct. It is the but-for cause of persons being completely unable to exercise the right to keep arms for multiple days."

That framing treats the waiting period as more than paperwork. It treats the hold as the reason a lawful buyer cannot exercise the right at all for several days running. Twenty-five states signed on behind Montana’s lead.

Maine enacted the hold after Lewiston, then skipped a veto

Maine’s Legislature passed the 72-hour waiting period after an October 2023 event in Lewiston carried out by an Army reservist with a history of mental health issues. The measure took effect in 2024. Democratic Gov. Janet Mills refused to veto it and instead allowed the bill to become law without her signature.

Blue-state gun restrictions often follow tragedy and then harden into permanent process. Maine’s path fits that pattern: a high-profile attack, a new delay on every purchase, and a Democratic governor who would not own a veto yet still let the rule stand.

Maine declined to respond to Beckwith’s Supreme Court petition on Thursday, filing a waiver rather than a full brief at that stage. The state’s silence leaves the multi-state challenge and the gun-rights groups’ filings as the clearest arguments now before the justices.

Court fights over core rules have become a steady feature of national politics, from ballot procedures to the size of the bench itself. Democrats have floated expanding the Court when rulings cut against them, a threat raised again when Clyburn called for a 13-justice Supreme Court and voiced regret over past support for Justice Clarence Thomas.

NRA and Second Amendment Foundation pile on

The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation filed their own brief on September 21 asking the Court to hear Beckwith v. Frey. The groups argue waiting periods lack deep historical roots and that Americans could regularly take possession of firearms right away in the 18th and 19th centuries.

On September 24 the NRA posted:

"Waiting periods are a historical anomaly. Our brief shows Americans could regularly acquire firearms immediately in the 18th and 19th centuries. The NRA will continue fighting unconstitutional waiting periods across the country."

That historical claim lines up with the states’ constitutional argument. If the original public meaning of the right to keep arms included immediate possession after a lawful purchase, a modern three-day freeze looks like a new burden, not a longstanding regulation.

Pressure on the Court has also come from other directions. The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court a third time seeking to enforce mail-ballot restrictions after lower courts blocked them, underscoring how often major policy fights now run through the justices.

Tenth Circuit already struck a similar delay

A parallel case strengthens the push for review. In August 2025 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit struck down a waiting period on firearms purchases in New Mexico. That panel overruled a decision that had favored the state, a ruling issued by Senior U.S. District Judge James O. Browning, a George W. Bush appointee.

The First Circuit upheld Maine’s approach by reversing Walker. The Tenth Circuit went the other way on a waiting period. That kind of split raises the odds the Supreme Court will step in to set a uniform rule. Half the country, through the Montana-led brief, is now asking for exactly that.

Lawmakers and activists who dislike the current Court majority have already signaled they would change its structure after elections. Sen. Tim Scott has warned Democrats could impeach Trump, Cabinet officials, and pack the Supreme Court if they win midterms, a reminder that gun cases arrive against a backdrop of open institutional pressure.

Election-related court rulings have produced the same heated reaction. After one decision allowed citizenship checks, a Maryland senator claimed Trump will try to rig the election, showing how quickly process fights become political weapons.

What the challenge puts at stake

Beckwith’s petition, the 25-state brief, and the NRA-SAF filing all center on the same core claim: once a background check clears, the government may not invent multi-day possession bans that leave a buyer unarmed. Maine’s law does exactly that for 72 hours. The states call it a direct restriction. The gun-rights groups call it a historical anomaly.

Maine’s choice to waive a response leaves those arguments unanswered on the current docket filing. The First Circuit’s reversal of a Trump-appointed district judge created the need for high-court review. The Tenth Circuit’s opposite result in New Mexico supplies the split. Twenty-five states have now told the justices the waiting-period model fails the Constitution.

Lawful buyers, including people seeking protection after domestic violence, should not lose days of the right to keep arms because a blue-state legislature layered process on top of an already completed background check. The Court has a clear chance to say so.