We previously outlined the requirements and timeline for compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule and included a summary of the patchwork of state efforts to regulate PFAS. Since then, additional state regulations have taken effect, and legal challenges have been brought. This post highlights the most recent development regarding New Mexico’s PFAS rule.

As the landscape of PFAS regulation continues to change, manufacturers, distributers and property owners should stay abreast of how each new requirement affects their operations.

Background

On May 5, 2026, the New Mexico Environment Department promulgated a final rule requiring that products containing intentionally added PFAS must be labeled with an Erlenmeyer flask with “PFAS” inside the flask, the first such requirement in the world. The rule took effect July 1 and required that the label be added to products by Jan. 1, 2027.

The National Association of Manufacturers and other trade associations, including the American Chemistry Council, American Coatings Association and Power Tool Institute, challenged the labeling requirement, filing a federal lawsuit claiming the labeling requirement violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against compelled speech and arguing the prescribed warning label is not purely factual, as required by Supreme Court precedent, but “instead is designed to invoke fear of chemicals.”

At the crux of the legal disagreement is whether the label is a warning label or a consumer awareness label. The trade associations sought a preliminary injunction to stop the labeling requirement from going into effect while the merits of their constitutional challenge could be decided.

Preliminary Injunction Granted

The plaintiffs were granted a temporary reprieve from the PFAS labeling requirement after a federal judge on Sept. 16 entered a preliminary injunction staying New Mexico’s labeling rule. The court questioned whether there is a reasonable fit between the labeling requirement and New Mexico’s asserted interests in consumer health and safety and environmental protection, concluding that there is not, so that the trade associations are likely to prevail on the merits of their First Amendment claim.

This decision provides temporary relief to manufacturers and their operations who have been scrambling to meet the compliance deadline by the end of the year.

New Mexico can appeal the preliminary injunction to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the odds are against the state overturning the injunction, which would be granted only if the appellate court found that the district court judge abused her discretion in granting the injunction.

Miles & Stockbridge’s environmental law lawyers are monitoring the New Mexico case as well as efforts by other states to regulate PFAS.

Opinions and conclusions in this post are solely those of the author unless otherwise indicated. The information contained in this blog is general in nature and is not offered and cannot be considered as legal advice for any particular situation. The author has provided the links referenced above for information purposes only and by doing so, does not adopt or incorporate the contents. Any federal tax advice provided in this communication is not intended or written by the author to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient, for the purpose of avoiding penalties which may be imposed on the recipient by the IRS. Please contact the author if you would like to receive written advice in a format which complies with IRS rules and may be relied upon to avoid penalties.