Federal Court Grants Plaintiffs’ Motion For A Preliminary Injunction In Challenge To New Mexico’s PFAS Labeling Requirement

As reported in our July 8, 2026, memorandum, on July 1, 2026, a coalition of industry associations filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, challenging New Mexico’s May 5, 2026, final rule on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in consumer products. American Chemistry Council (ACC) v. Kenney (Case No. 1:26-cv-02130). The coalition argues that the final rule is unconstitutional and that its enforcement should be permanently enjoined. On September 16, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted the coalition’s motion for a preliminary injunction. After finding that the final rule’s labeling requirement “is purely factual and noncontroversial,” the court examines whether there is a reasonable fit between the means the final rule uses and New Mexico’s interest. Plaintiffs maintain that the final rule is not reasonably related to a substantial state interest, “asserting that Zauderer allows government mandated speech to ‘ensure that consumers received accurate information related to their transactions, and nothing more than that.’” New Mexico argues that it has interests in protecting consumer health and safety, protecting the environment, and providing relevant information about the manufacturing process to consumers. Underpinning this dispute “is the Parties’ running disagreement as to whether the Regulation requiring the PFAS label is a warning label, as Plaintiffs suggest, or if it is a consumer awareness label, as Defendants suggest.” Noting the Defendants’ repeated disavowals that the PFAS label constitutes a warning, the court states: “Bluntly, Defendants’ characterizations of the innocuous nature of the label suggests the state’s interest is akin to mere consumer curiosity that the AMI court warned could not stand.” According to the court, characterization of the label as a “consumer awareness label” rather than a “warning label” “destroy[s] the connection between the purpose of the required disclosure — to promote consumer and environmental health — and the means employed to realize that purpose, which in other instances is achieved with a warning.” If the required label is a consumer awareness label, the court asks how is New Mexico’s “purported state interest in protecting consumer and environmental health served and how are consumers to know that it may impact their health or the environment if the required label provides no such information?” The court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.