New Mexico Appeals PFAS Labeling Injunction to the Tenth Circuit
New Mexico has appealed a preliminary injunction against the state’s far-reaching PFAS labeling requirement to the Tenth Circuit.
The notice of appeal, filed October 16, 2026, concerns only the portions of the district court’s order “holding that New Mexico’s PFAS label is unlikely to pass rational basis scrutiny under Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985).”
The District of New Mexico granted the preliminary injunction on September 21, 2026. Although the court preliminarily determined that the label was purely factual and uncontroversial under Zauderer, the court concluded that there was likely no reasonable connection between the labeling requirement and New Mexico’s asserted interests.
This conclusion rested on New Mexico’s characterization of the label as a consumer awareness disclosure rather than a warning. Specifically, the court questioned how the label furthers consumer awareness if it does not convey information about how PFAS may affect health or the environment.
“In characterizing the required label as a ‘consumer awareness label,’ and not a ‘warning label,’ Defendants destroy 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,” the order states.
If the preliminary injunction is lifted, the labeling requirement will take effect January 1, 2027, for all consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS except used products, pesticides, veterinary products, and medical devices and drugs.
In addition to the federal lawsuit, a state-court challenge to the rule is also ongoing.
What New Mexico May Argue on Appeal
A filing New Mexico submitted shortly after the injunction was granted may signal its appellate arguments.
On September 25, 2026, the state filed a submission in support of its motion to dismiss, in which it “respectfully ask[s] the Court to reconsider its reasoning” on whether the label is a reasonable fit. The state argues that the inquiry “does not hinge solely on what the label itself contains,” but instead “looks more broadly at what the label does.” This can be satisfied by common sense and logic, the filing contends.
According to the state, the label meets this standard because it allows consumers to avoid products containing PFAS, which “inherently furthers both the State’s public health and environmental protection interests.” In support, New Mexico points to record evidence that consumers are willing to pay more for PFAS-free products.
The state also argues that, under the district court’s reasoning, no ingredient disclosure could ever survive scrutiny without an accompanying warning. “This cannot be right,” the filing states, citing cases upholding labels for calorie counts and genetically engineered ingredients that did not include clarifying language about the underlying interest.
The case is American Chemistry Council v. Kenney, No. 1:26-cv-02130 (D.N.M.), filed July 1, 2026.
