Skip to content
Effective

Beckwith v. Frey: First Circuit Vacates Injunction Against Maine Waiting Period

Effective

Beckwith v. Frey: First Circuit Vacates Injunction Against Maine Waiting Period

On April 3, 2026, the First Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction against Maine's 72-hour firearm-delivery waiting period after concluding that the law was likely constitutional. The ruling addressed preliminary relief, not a final merits judgment. The Supreme Court denied the certiorari petition on October 19, 2026.

●Reviewed Oct 21, 2026

On April 3, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction that had blocked Maine's 72-hour waiting period for delivery of a purchased firearm.[1] The panel concluded that the law was likely constitutional and remanded for further proceedings. It did not enter a final judgment resolving the entire case.

What the Court Decided

The appeal concerned whether the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on the merits, one of the requirements for preliminary relief. The panel reasoned that Maine's law regulates when a seller may deliver a purchased firearm and does not, on the record before it, infringe the textual right to keep and bear arms. Because the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success, the court vacated the injunction.

What the Decision Does Not Decide

The opinion does not hold that every acquisition regulation is constitutional. It does not decide the final merits after a complete trial record, and it does not directly decide any Massachusetts statute or regulation.

Supreme Court Status

The Supreme Court docket for Beckwith v. Frey, No. 26-258, records that the certiorari petition was filed on August 25, 2026. On September 30, 2026, it was distributed for the Court's October 16, 2026 conference. On October 19, 2026, the Court denied the petition.[5]

Massachusetts Relevance

Massachusetts is within the First Circuit, so the court's reasoning may be cited in federal cases involving acquisition or delivery restrictions. Any comparison must account for the text, operation, procedural posture, and evidentiary record of the Massachusetts provision at issue.