New Mexico Appeals Court orders dismissal of oil and gas pollution lawsuit

A pumpjack operates north of Carlsbad, NM. The New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled to dismiss a lawsuit alleging the state violated the state constituion and failied to protect residents from oil and gas pollution.(Photo by Jerry Redfern / Capital & Main)
The New Mexico Court of Appeals ordered a lower court Tuesday to toss a case alleging that state officials failed to protect residents from oil and gas pollution in violation of the New Mexico State Constitution.
In the order issued Tuesday, justices in the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's ruling and concluded that the judiciary does not have the power to address the plaintiffs' claims.
'The relief Plaintiffs seek—as presented by their complaint—exceeds the boundary of that which the judiciary is authorized to grant,' wrote Chief Judge Jacqueline Medina.
Justices ordered the lower court to dismiss the complaint.
The civil lawsuit was first filed in May of 2023 on behalf of environmental groups, youth activists and individuals from the Pueblos, the Permian Basin and Navajo Nation against the Legislature, New Mexico's top officials and rulemaking bodies on oil and gas.
The lawsuit alleged the state government failed to limit permitting of oil and gas production and did not adequately enforce pollution laws, which plaintiffs argued is a violation of a 1971 amendment to the state constitution, called the Pollution Control Clause.
'The protection of the state's beautiful and healthful environment is hereby declared to be of fundamental importance to the public interest, health, safety and the general welfare. The legislature shall provide for control of pollution and control of despoilment of the air, water and other natural resources of this state, consistent with the use and development of these resources for the maximum benefit of the people.'
Further, the plaintiffs argued the state's actions around oil and gas production and pollution discriminated against Indigenous people, youth and frontline communities.
Plaintiffs requested the courts rule that the state has a constitutional duty to prevent pollution — similar to landmark rulings in education and workers' compensation — and asked the courts to 'suspend additional permitting of oil and gas wells' until the state is in compliance. Moreover, plaintiffs asked the courts order state government to install a regulatory structure and plan to protect from pollution.
Attorneys for the State of New Mexico argued the ruling oversteps separations of power between the branches of government, and that youth and frontline communities are not protected classes and there's no discriminatory intent.
In June 2024, First District Judge Matthew Wilson dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the Legislature, but allowed the case to continue moving through the courts to determine if a constitutional right to pollution control exists.
On Tuesday, the Appeals Court determined the state Constitution does not grant any specific right 'to any individual or group, to be free from a given amount of pollution. Nor can it be inferred to create an enforceable right to a beautiful and healthful environment,' Medina wrote.
Additionally, justices agreed with the state's arguments that frontline and youth are not classifications for discriminatory treatment.
Gail Evans, lead counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, said plaintiffs plan to appeal Tuesday's decision.
'New Mexicans amended our constitution 50 years ago to protect our residents from pollution. With this terrible ruling, the court has eviscerated our constitutionally protected rights,' Evans said in a written statement. 'This will lead to more air pollution, more contaminated land and water, and more sickness in our communities. We'll continue our fight against the filthy oil and gas industry on behalf of all New Mexicans and will be appealing this decision to the state Supreme Court.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Los Angeles Times

28 minutes ago

• Los Angeles Times

Big state budget questions linger about crime, Medi-Cal, Delta tunnel

SACRAMENTO — California really does still have a Legislature, even if you haven't been reading or hearing much about it. In fact, it's currently making a ton of weighty decisions. They'll affect many millions of Californians — with a gamut of new laws and hefty spending. But the lawmakers' moves have been slipping under the news radar because of our focus on more compelling non-Sacramento events — including protests against overzealous federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, President Trump's power trip of calling up the California National Guard over Gov. Gavin Newsom's objections and Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla's being shoved to the floor and handcuffed for simply trying to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question. Plus congressional wrangling over Trump's 'Big Beautiful' ugly, debt-hiking bill — and the eruption of a Middle East war. Meanwhile, it's one of the busiest and most important periods of the year in the state Capitol. This is budget time, when the Legislature and governor decide how to spend our tax dollars. The Legislature passed a $325-billion so-called budget June 13, beating its constitutional deadline by two days. If it hadn't, the lawmakers would have forfeited their pay. But although that measure counted legally as a budget, it lacked lots of details that still are being negotiated between legislative leaders and Newsom. The final agreements will be tucked into a supplementary measure amending the main budget bill. That will be followed by a long line of 'trailer bills' containing even more policy specifics — all currently being hammered out, mostly in back rooms. The target date for conclusion of this Byzantine process is Friday. The annual budget will take effect July 1. Some budget-related issues are of special interest to me and I've written about them previously. So, the rest of this column is what we call in the news trade a 'follow' — a report on where those matters stand. For starters, there's Proposition 36 funding. Californians cast more votes for Proposition 36 last year than anything else on the ballot. The measure passed with 68% of the vote, carrying all 58 counties. Inspired by escalating retail theft, the initiative toughened penalties for certain property and hard-drug crimes, such as peddling deadly fentanyl. But it offered a carrot to drug-addicted serial criminals. Many could be offered treatment rather than jail time. Proposition 36 needs state money for the treatment, more probation officers to supervise the addicts' progress and additional law enforcement costs. The measure's backers estimate a $250-million annual tab. Newsom, however, was an outspoken opponent of the proposition. He didn't provide any funding for it in his original budget proposal and stiffed it again last month when revising the spending plan. But legislative leaders insisted on some funding and agreed on a one-time appropriation of $110 million. Woefully inadequate, the measure's backers contend. They're pushing for more. But some fear Newsom might even veto the $110 million, although this seems doubtful, given the public anger that could generate. Greg Totten, chief executive of the California District Attorneys Assn., which sponsored the initiative, says more money is especially needed to hire additional probation officers. Treatment without probation won't work, he insists. Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) is trying to change the $110-million allocation mix. There's nothing earmarked for county sheriffs who now are handling lots more arrests, she says. 'I want to make sure we uphold the voters' wishes and are getting people into drug treatment,' Blakespear says. 'This passed by such a high percentage, it should be a priority for elected officials.' Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) predicts the Legislature will still be fiddling with the budget until it adjourns in September and vows: 'I'll continue to advocate for adequate funding for 36.' He asserts the budget now being negotiated won't hold up because of chaos under Trump, who's constantly threatening to withhold federal money due California. Another sticky issue is state-provided healthcare for immigrants living here illegally. Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature decided a few years ago to generously offer all low-income undocumented immigrants access to Medi-Cal, California's version of federal Medicaid for the poor. But unlike Medi-Cal for legal residents, the federal government doesn't kick in money for undocumented people. The state foots the entire bill. And it didn't set aside enough. Predictably, state costs ran several billion dollars over budget. The Newsom administration claims that more adults enrolled in the program than expected. But, come on! When free healthcare is offered to poor people, you should expect a race to enroll. To help balance the books, Newsom proposed $100 monthly premiums. The Legislature reduced that to $30. They both agreed to freeze enrollments for adults starting Jan. 1. The Legislature also wants to freeze Medi-Cal enrollment for even more people who are non-citizens: those with what it considers 'unsatisfactory immigration status.' What does that mean? Hopefully it's being negotiated. And there's the matter of the governor's proposed water tunnel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Newsom tried to squeeze the controversial issue into the budget process, although it had nothing to do with the budget. But as a budget trailer bill, it could avoid substantive public hearings in the Legislature. The governor wants to 'fast-track' construction of the $20-billion, 45-mile tunnel that would transmit more Northern California water to Southern California. Delta farmers, local residents and coastal salmon interests are adamantly opposed. Fast-track means making it simpler to obtain permits and seize property. Legislative leaders told the governor absolutely 'No': come back later and run his proposal through the ordinary committee process. Don't try to fast-track the Legislature. The must-read: 'A good day': Detained U.S. citizen said agents bragged after arresting dozens at Home Depot The visit: Vice President JD Vance rips Newsom, Bass and mocks Padilla during visit to Los Angeles The L.A. Times Special: Welcome to the deportation resistance, Dodgers. What's next? Until next week,George Skelton —Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The Hill

an hour ago

• The Hill

Michigan Dem to introduce bill limiting presidential power to deploy troops on US soil

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) is set to introduce legislation next week that would make it illegal for President Trump to deploy active duty service forces to a state or territory without receiving a direct request from the state or territory's governor. The Stop Trump's Abuse of Power Act, revealed first to The Hill, comes after the Trump administration deployed hundreds of Marines and over 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles earlier this month amid unrest over the president's immigration agenda. 'President Trump has shown a disturbing pattern of disregard for the Constitution and due process. This month, he made it harder for local law enforcement to do their jobs in California by unlawfully deploying our military on U.S. soil — further escalating tension and violence,' Stevens said in a statement. 'We must stand up to Donald Trump's chaos and destruction, which is why I am introducing this legislation to limit his powers and make sure he cannot deploy troops on U.S. soil for his political gain. We are a nation of laws and it's about time the President begins to follow them.' According to Stevens's office, the legislation would add the language into the Insurrection Act of 1807 and only apply to duties connected to peaceful demonstrations. Trump faced fierce backlash from Democrats, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) over his move to deploy troops to Los Angeles. The California governor has maintained that the president's move to federalize soldiers without consulting him was illegal and asked the courts for an emergency order to block the deployment. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee, initially ruled in California's favor, but the emergency injunction was overturned by the 9th Circuit on June 13. The three-judge panel then unanimously extended its pause in an unsigned, 38-page decision released Thursday night. 'We emphasize, however, that our decision addresses only the facts before us. And although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,' the appeals panel wrote. Trump called the ruling a 'big win' on Friday, while Newsom said in a post on X that 'the fight doesn't end here.'

Politico

2 hours ago

• Politico

Beshear shows Florida Dems his winning blueprint

Good morning and welcome to Monday. When the Florida Democratic Party invited Kentucky Gov. ANDY BESHEAR to speak at its Leadership Blue gala on Saturday night, it seemed to be sending a loud-and-clear message: We'll have what he's having. What exactly is that? A winning streak they envy. Beshear has won statewide office as a Democrat three times in a row in Kentucky — a place where President DONALD TRUMP dominated in 2024 by 30 points — despite describing himself with terms like 'pro-choice' and 'pro-union.' Compare that to Florida, where Trump won by 13 points but Republicans have eclipsed Democrats in recent cycles to take over the Legislature, every statewide office and a big voter registration advantage. Democrats have been depressed about it, but they say they'll keep fighting. As it turns out, Beshear had a lot of thoughts about what Florida Democrats need to do. And it wasn't just because he enjoys vacationing in the Panhandle. He told Playbook that during the weekend, a lot of Democrats approached him to ask about his political secret sauce. 'I'm here as proof that when Democrats put people first and stand firm on our values, we can — we will — win tough elections,' he said onstage later. Beshear opened up about his blueprint, both onstage at the gala (held at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel in Hollywood), in gaggles with journalists and one-on-one with Playbook. Here are the biggest takeaways: Focus on people's daily lives. Beshear said one of the big reasons Trump won the 2024 election was because he convinced voters that 'the vice president was distracted' while he was focused on issues like high prices and public safety. 'When people wake up in the morning, they're not thinking about the next election,' he said. 'They're thinking about their job and whether they make enough to support their family. They're thinking about the next doctor's appointment for themselves, their parents or their kids. They're thinking about the roads and bridges they drive each day, the school they drop their kids off at, and whether they feel safe in their community. The way that Democrats win is to own that lane.' Talk like a real person. Beshear gently reprimanded Democrats for using terms like justice-involved populations, substance use disorder and food insecurity — word he said he knew were intended to reduce stigma but that also ended up being an attempt at sanitizing difficult issues and taking the emotion out of them. He urged them instead to use the words addiction and hungry. 'I know all of this is important,' he said, 'but we don't change stigma by changing words. You change stigma by changing hearts.' Get dirt on your boots. 'What that means is that we're not just signing something in a rose garden,' Beshear said. 'We are out there making sure that people see the new factory, see the new growth, to see the impact that we're making in their daily lives, to get out in those communities again and again, because showing up shows the people we care.' Explain why. Democrats need to talk about their reasons for making decisions, Beshear said. For him, it's his Christian faith. So when he vetoed sweeping legislation that would have restricted bathrooms for transgender people and banned gender-affirming care for minors, he said it was because of his faith. 'My faith teaches me that every child is a child of God,' he told Kentuckians then, 'and I didn't want people picking on those kids.' The next day, he said, a man came toward him at an event and told him that even though he didn't agree with the veto, he understood the governor was doing what he thought was right. 'Whether people agreed with the decision or not, they knew what I was thinking,' he said. 'It creates the grace and the space to disagree and understand where someone is coming from.' Have a tip, story, suggestion, birthday, anniversary, new job, or any other nugget that Playbook should look at? Get in touch at: kleonard@ CAMPAIGN MODE MORE FROM LEADERSHIP BLUE … — Another quick note on Beshear: These events can also be viewed as an audition of sorts. Beshear is considering running for president, and (to close listeners) there were a couple 2028 Easter eggs in his speech. For instance, he included a dig at Vice President JD VANCE, widely viewed as the very early GOP frontrunner, as not actually being from Kentucky and said Democrats should 'make sure this is the last political job he ever has.' Then he capped off his speech with a resounding, 'Are you ready to elect a Democratic president in 2028?' — A key theme from the party: 'Several elected officials and party leaders agreed on one thing: they have a messaging problem, and President Donald Trump might help them solve it,' report Siena Duncan and Vivienne Serret of the Miami Herald. 'Democrats mentioned immigration, tariffs and potential cuts to healthcare as issues that have caused division in Florida districts that voted Republican. Deportations in South Florida were central to the discussion, with issues like revoking Temporary Protected Status, instating travel bans and targeting immigrants who have not committed crimes roiling Hispanic communities.' — Democratic Sen. CORY BOOKER of New Jersey got the crowd's attention. Mitch Perry of the Florida Phoenix writes: Booker's speech 'began with him calling for the house lights to be put on so he could see all 1,000-plus attendees, and then he waded into the audience, ultimately standing atop a table to address the crowd.' — At one point, Booker said, 'I miss Obama,' then joked that he was referring to the former first lady and not the former president. 'Michelle!' he yelled jokingly into the mic, 'If you married me, I'd be president right now!' — The Florida Phoenix also highlighted NIKKI FRIED's remarks, delivered unknowingly to her as Trump revealed the US had bombed Iran: 'Our message is shit,' she said. 'Our brand is broken. But quitting, hiding, waiting or whining will not fix it. What will? Showing up.' SPOTTED: Reps. SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, JARED MOSKOWITZ, DARREN SOTO, DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ; gubernatorial candidate DAVID JOLLY; Senate candidate JOSH WEIL; House Democratic leader FENTRICE DRISKELL; state Reps. ANNA ESKAMANI, MICHELE RAYNER, MARIE WOODSON, KEVIN CHAMBLISS, CHRISTINE HUNSCHOFSKY and ASHLEY GANTT; state Sens. SHEVRIN JONES, TRACIE DAVIS; Miami Dade County Mayor DANIELLA LEVINE CAVA; former Florida Democratic Party Chair TERRIE RIZZO. ... DATELINE TALLAHASSEE ... ENVIRONMENTAL SPENDING REVERSAL — 'State legislators this year pivoted away from spending money to buy environmentally sensitive land and instead poured hundreds of millions into paying Florida land owners — including farm owners — from developing their property,' reports POLITICO's Gary Fineout. 'That was one of the biggest environmental spending highlights in this year's $115 billion state budget that also included a significant retreat from a decision made just a year ago to permanently dedicate money from the state's gambling deal with the Seminole Tribe to environmental programs.' WEATHER MANIPULATION BANNED — 'DeSantis signed Senate Bill 56, spearheaded by Sen. Ileana Garcia, R-Miami, which repeals current state law that allowed the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to issue permits to people or groups seeking to change the weather,' reports Michaela Mulligan of the Tampa Bay Times. 'Weather modification is just as it sounds: It's the act of artificially influencing the weather. And in Florida, despite previous legislation, no institutions have ever sought a permit to change the weather, according to state environment officials.' — 'Judge grants partial delay in Carolina Amesty's federal case until next month,' reports Gabrielle Russon of Florida Politics. — Florida Politics is out with its annual list of Tampa Bay's Most Powerful Politicians. PENINSULA AND BEYOND LOOK WHO'S BACK — DeSantis is keeping a familiar face on the University of West Florida trustee board by reappointing ADAM KISSEL, who was rejected by two state Senate committees over his stances on higher education. Kissel, who DeSantis reinstalled on the board Friday, is expected to be a key vote as part of a new majority picked by DeSantis to run UWF alongside Education Commissioner MANNY DIAZ JR., the school's interim president. A visiting fellow on higher education reform for The Heritage Foundation, Kissel was grilled by senators over his past writings, where he signaled support for privatizing universities and claimed military veterans are contributing to an 'overpopulation problem' facing colleges. Kissel, listed as a resident of Charleston, West Virginia, earlier this month suggested the University of Florida should 'consider a path to privatization' in response to state leaders rejecting former University of Michigan President Santa Ono as its prospective president. — Andrew Atterbury VOTING ON ELECTION CHANGES — Miami city commissioners will vote this week on whether to move its municipality elections to even years, which would help improve voter turnout, report Tess Riski and Jay Weaver of the Miami Herald. Should the election get moved, then it would cancel the 2025 election and allow certain officials, such as Miami Mayor FRANCIS SUAREZ, more time in their role regardless of term limits. DeSantis and state Attorney General JAMES UTHMEIER have warned Miami officials they don't have the right to move the elections without voters weighing in. — 'Fort Lauderdale eyeing own emergency reserve in case FEMA goes away,' reports Susannah Bryan of the South Florida Sun Sentinel. TRUMPLANDIA AND THE SWAMP JUDICIARY SCRUTINY — 'A Florida state judge was lobbying for a seat on the federal bench. After he sided with the president in a defamation case, Donald Trump gave him one,' reports POLITICO's Hailey Fuchs. 'Ed Artau, now a nominee to be a district court judge in Florida, met with staff in the office of Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott to angle for the nomination less than two weeks after Trump's election last fall, according to a new Senate disclosure obtained by POLITICO. In the midst of his interviews, Artau was part of a panel of judges that ruled in Trump's favor in the president's case against members of the Pulitzer Prize Board.' DATELINE D.C. REACTIONS TO US BOMBING OF IRAN — Sens. RICK SCOTT and ASHLEY MOODY both issued supportive statements about the president's decision to launch strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday night, reports Drew Dixon of Florida Politics. Over in the House, many Democrats, including Rep. DARREN SOTO, said they were concerned that the president hadn't sought congressional approval before launching the strikes. Soto told Playbook he'd supported the bipartisan War Powers resolution that had been introduced in the House and wanted to look into whether Trump had exceeded his powers. 'It is a lot more offensive than normally the actions that are taken through the use of force,' he said. 'Often, it's done to help protect our allies — like Israel and the region and Kuwait and others. So there's a lot of questions to be asked. We also certainly don't want a nuclear Iran.' Rep. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D-Fla.) had a more nuanced position, saying that Iran now needed to return to engaging in diplomatic negotiations. She said Trump should turn to Congress for any further action on Iran but that in her view the move on Saturday 'was a defensive one.' 'The window had opened with Israel striking their nuclear sites,' she said, 'and when diplomacy appeared to have not been effective, to me, it was essential to not allow that window to close, because this appeared to be the most significant opportunity to be able to prevent them from being able to achieve their nuclear goals.' TELLING HER PERSONAL STORY — Republican Rep. KAT CAMMACK opened up to The Wall Street Journal's Katy Stech Ferek recently to reveal that she had an ectopic pregnancy — a life-threatening condition — after Florida's six-week abortion limit was signed into law. She said the doctors questioned whether they were allowed to treat her by expelling the embryo, and she had to read them the law to persuade them to move ahead. Per WSJ: 'Cammack doesn't fault the Florida law for her experience. Instead, she accuses the left of scaring medical professionals with messaging that stressed that they could face criminal charges for violating the law. She said she feels those efforts gave medical staff reason to fear giving drugs even under legal circumstances.' — 'One Big, Beautiful Bill's changes for Obamacare could be ugly for Florida,' by Christine Sexton of the Florida Phoenix. ODDS, ENDS AND FLORIDA MEN BIRTHDAY: Former state Rep. Joy Goff-Marcil.