Federal Judge Strikes Down New Mexico Gun Waiting Period for Plaintiffs, Setting Up Broader Showdown

When a federal judge entered a final judgment last week enjoining New Mexico from enforcing its seven-day firearm waiting period, gun rights advocates and social media commentators immediately declared the 2024 law dead statewide. That interpretation is premature. The injunction issued by U.S. District Judge James O. Browning is party-specific, legally shielding only the two named plaintiffs from the mandate. Millions of other New Mexicans remain technically subject to the cooling-off period, even as the ruling structurally guts the state's ability to defend the law in future enforcement actions.[3]

The August 27 order in Ortega v. Grisham permanently prohibits Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and Attorney General Raúl Torrez from forcing plaintiffs Samuel Ortega and Rebecca Scott to wait a week to take possession of legally purchased firearms after passing a background check. The ruling caps a legal challenge launched by the National Rifle Association and the Mountain States Legal Foundation on the exact day the law took effect earlier this year.[1][2][5]

The mechanics of the decision reveal a deep judicial divide over how to apply recent Supreme Court precedent. Judge Browning explicitly noted in his order that he "continues to believe the Waiting Period Act is constitutional." However, he granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs because he was bound by the mandate of a higher court, which had already weighed in on the core constitutional question during an earlier phase of the litigation.[5]

In August 2025, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Browning's earlier denial of a preliminary injunction. The appellate panel concluded that waiting periods are "neither longstanding nor widespread practices" and diverge from the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Under the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen framework, which requires modern gun laws to have a distinct historical analogue, the Tenth Circuit determined the plaintiffs would likely succeed in proving the law violates the Second Amendment.[2][5]

State attorneys had argued that the district court was not strictly bound by the appellate panel's preliminary findings and urged Browning to uphold the statute upon final review. Browning rejected that argument, citing the mandate rule, which strips inferior courts of the power to deviate from an appellate court's directives on remanded cases. Bound by that mandate, he entered judgment for the plaintiffs and closed the case.[5]

The fractured nature of the ruling has created immediate administrative confusion. Because the injunction only names Ortega and Scott, the Mountain States Legal Foundation expressed frustration with what it called a "watered-down ruling" that leaves the broader public in legal limbo. In response, New Mexico House Republicans issued a formal letter on September 1 demanding that the governor and attorney general voluntarily cease all enforcement of the waiting period, arguing the Tenth Circuit's underlying logic invalidates the statute entirely.[1][4]

The executive branch shows no signs of conceding the broader policy. A spokesperson for Governor Lujan Grisham stated that the administration is assessing its options but can say "with almost complete certainty" that it will appeal the final judgment back to the Tenth Circuit. The state maintains that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms, but not the right to obtain new firearms instantaneously, framing the seven-day delay as a minor commercial condition rather than a fundamental infringement.

The New Mexico dispute is accelerating a broader jurisdictional collision over cooling-off periods. While the Tenth Circuit has signaled that such laws fail the Bruen test, a federal judge in neighboring Colorado reached the exact opposite conclusion in 2023, upholding that state's three-day waiting period under similar Second Amendment challenges. This deepening circuit split over how to interpret historical analogues for commercial firearm regulations makes the issue a prime candidate for eventual Supreme Court intervention.