New Mexico Supreme Court reverses Whistleblower Protection ruling
Supreme Court of New Mexico: (from left) Justice Julie J. Vargas, Justice Michael E. Vigil, Chief Justice David K. Thomson, Justice C. Shannon Bacon, and Justice Briana H. Zamora. (Photo courtesy of the Supreme Court.)
The state Supreme Court on Thursday issued a unanimous opinion it says reconciles conflicting rulings by the Court of Appeals regarding the state's Whistleblower Protection Act.
Specifically, the new opinion says for a public employee to receive protection under the act, disclosures about wrong or illegal actions by a public employer must benefit the public in some way.
While case law is 'sparse' regarding the Whistleblower Protection Act, the opinion says, the Appeals Court decision in the case of corrections officer Manuel Lerma conflicted with one of its earlier rulings, the state Supreme Court said, and too narrowly interpreted the law.
Lerna, who had 16 years' experience with the New Mexico Corrections Department, transferred to a new facility where he guarded the prison's sally port and ensured, as 'safety protocol' that one side of the dual-gate system remained closed when the other was open. dual-gate system was to have one gate closed when opening the other gate as a 'safety protocol.'
Lerna's 'strict' enforcement of this protocol led to 'disagreement' between him and other transportation division corrections officers, who wanted him to leave both gates open 'at the same time…so they could come and go as they pleased.' Lerna alleges that 'one day while he was driving home from the prison, his vehicle 'kept [being] block[ed]' when it was sandwiched between two vehicles, each driven by a DOC employee, causing him to pull his vehicle over and stop in an empty lot. Plaintiff, 'fearing for [his] life,' was beaten by a fellow corrections officer. A prison supervisory lieutenant filmed the altercation using his agency-issued cell phone.'
Lerna reported both the pushback on the protocol and the violent episode, and Corrections cited and disciplined two people involved for what the department acknowledged as 'egregious conduct.' Lerna, however, contends he was reassigned after disclosing as retaliation.
He subsequently filed a lawsuit citing violations of whistleblower protections, which a district court dismissed in response to Corrections Department arguments that Lerma's grievances were personal and not covered by the act. Lerma challenged the district court's summary judgement against him and the Appeals Court ruled in his favor, saying his grievances did not have to be for the benefit of the public. This, the state Supreme Court said in its opinion today, is incorrect.
'A public employee's disclosure of illegality or wrongdoing qualifies for protected whistleblower status, if otherwise eligible, so long as the disclosure confers a benefit on the public, irrespective of which benefit – public or personal – may be said to predominate,' the opinion written by Chief Justice David K. Thomson said.
The court returned the case to the Appeals Court to decide if Lerma qualifies for whistleblower protection under that standard of public benefit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Donald Trump says return of wrongfully deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia 'wasn't my decision'
Donald Trump says return of wrongfully deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia 'wasn't my decision' Show Caption Hide Caption Trump on the return of deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia President Trump spoke with reporters on Air Force One on the return of deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia. WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said in a new interview that he didn't speak with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele about Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return to the United States to face human trafficking charges, saying the move wasn't his choice. Trump told NBC News on June 7 it "wasn't my decision" to bring Abrego Garcia back to the country. Instead, he told the outlet the U.S. Justice Department 'decided to do it that way, and that's fine.' Abrego Garcia, a sheet metal worker and father of three from Maryland, was wrongly deported to El Salvador in March despite a 2019 court order barring his removal. His case drew national attention, after a standoff among the Trump administration, the courts and some congressional Democrats over his release. In April, a unanimous Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return to the United States. Officials claimed they couldn't force a sovereign nation − El Salvador − to relinquish a prisoner. The Trump administration insists that Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, but a federal judge had previously questioned the strength of the government's evidence. Abrego Garcia denies being a gang member. Now, the Maryland man faces new charges on American soil. At a June 6 press conference, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi accused Abrego Garcia of making over 100 trips to smuggle undocumented immigrants across the nation. The indictment against Abrego Garcia alleges that he and co-conspirators worked with people in other countries to transport immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, and Mexico, and then took the people from Houston to Maryland, often varying their routes, and coming up with cover stories about construction if they were pulled over. Trump told NBC News he believes "it should be a very easy case' for federal prosecutors. But Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, a lawyer for Abrego Garcia, criticized the Justice Department for bringing these charges at all: "Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after. This is an abuse of power, not justice." Contributing: USA TODAY Staff
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns
MEXICO CITY — More than a decade ago, Mexican authorities erected a billboard along the border in Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso. 'No More Weapons,' was the stark message, written in English and crafted from 3 tons of firearms that had been seized and crushed. It was a desperate entreaty to U.S. officials to stanch the so-called Iron River, the southbound flow of arms that was fueling record levels of carnage in Mexico. But the guns kept coming — and the bloodletting and mayhem grew. Finally, with homicides soaring to record levels, exasperated authorities pivoted to a novel strategy: Mexico filed a $10-billion suit in U.S. federal court seeking to have Smith & Wesson and other signature manufacturers held accountable for the country's epidemic of shooting deaths. The uphill battle against the powerful gun lobby survived an appeals court challenge, but last week the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Mexico's lawsuit, ruling unanimously that federal law shields gunmakers from nearly all liability. Although the litigation stalled, advocates say the high-profile gambit did notch a significant achievement: Dramatizing the role of Made-in-U.S.A. arms in Mexico's daily drumbeat of assassinations, massacres and disappearances. 'Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, Mexico's lawsuit has accomplished a great deal,' said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. 'It has put the issue of gun trafficking — and the industry's role in facilitating the gun pipeline — on the bilateral and international agenda,' said Lowy, who was co-counsel in Mexico's lawsuit. A few hours after the high court decision, Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, wrote on X that the White House was intent on working with Mexico 'to stop southbound arms trafficking and dismantle networks fueling cartel violence.' The comments mark the first time that Washington — which has strong-armed Mexico to cut down on the northbound traffic of fentanyl and other illicit drugs — has acknowledged a reciprocal responsibility to clamp down on southbound guns, said President Claudia Sheinbaum. She hailed it as a breakthrough, years in the making. 'This is not just about the passage of narcotics from Mexico to the United States,' Sheinbaum said Friday. 'But that there [must] also be no passage of arms from the United States to Mexico.' Mexico is mulling options after the Supreme Court rebuff, Sheinbaum said. Still pending is a separate lawsuit by Mexico in U.S. federal court accusing five gun dealers in Arizona of trafficking weapons and ammunition to the cartels. Meanwhile, U.S. officials say that the Trump administration's recent designation of six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations means that weapons traffickers may face terrorism-related charges. 'In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there,' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a congressional panel last month. 'We want to help stop that flow.' On Monday, federal agents gathered at an international bridge in Laredo, Texas, before an array of seized arms — from snub-nosed revolvers to mounted machine guns — to demonstrate what they insist is a newfound resolve to stop the illicit gun commerce. 'This isn't a weapon just going to Mexico,' Craig Larrabee, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, told reporters. 'It's going to arm the cartels. It's going to fight police officers and create terror throughout Mexico.' In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Mexican authorities charged that it defied credibility that U.S. gunmakers were unaware that their products were destined for Mexican cartels — a charge denied by manufacturers. The gun industry also disputed Mexico's argument that manufacturers deliberately produce military-style assault rifles and other weapons that, for both practical and aesthetic reasons, appeal to mobsters. Mexico cited several .38-caliber Colt offerings, including a gold-plated, Jefe de Jefes ('Boss of Bosses') pistol; and a handgun dubbed the 'Emiliano Zapata,' emblazoned with an image of the revered Mexican revolutionary hero and his celebrated motto: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' Compared with the United States, Mexico has a much more stringent approach to firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment, Mexico's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it also stipulates that federal law 'will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places' of gun ownership. There are just two stores nationwide, both run by the military, where people can legally purchase guns. At the bigger store, in Mexico City, fewer than 50 guns are sold on average each day. Buyers are required to provide names, addresses and fingerprints in a process that can drag on for months. And unlike the United States, Mexico maintains a national registry. But the vast availability of U.S.-origin, black-market weapons undermines Mexico's strict guidelines. According to Mexican officials, an estimated 200,000 to half a million guns are smuggled annually into Mexico. Data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives illustrate where criminals in Mexico are obtaining their firepower. Of the 132,823 guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2018, fully 70% were found to have originated in the U.S. — mostly in Texas and other Southwest border states. In their lawsuit, Mexican authorities cited even higher numbers: Almost 90% of guns seized at crime scenes came from north of the border. Experts say most firearms in Mexico are bought legally at U.S. gun shows or retail outlets by so-called straw purchasers,who smuggle the weapons across the border. It's a surprisingly easy task: More than a million people and about $1.8 billion in goods cross the border legally each day, and Mexico rarely inspects vehicles heading south. In recent years, the flood of weapons from the United States has accelerated, fueling record levels of violence. Mexican organized crime groups have expanded their turf and moved into rackets beyond drug trafficking, including extortion, fuel-smuggling and the exploitation of timber, minerals and other natural resources. In 2004, guns accounted for one-quarter of Mexico's homicides. Today, guns are used in roughly three-quarters of killings. Mexican leaders have long been sounding alarms. Former President Felipe Calderón, who, with U.S. backing, launched what is now widely viewed as a catastrophic 'war' on Mexican drug traffickers in late 2006, personally pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to reinstate a congressional prohibition on purchases of high-powered assault rifles. The expiration of the ban in 2004 meant that any adult with a clean record could enter a store in most states and walk out with weapons that, in much of the world, are legally reserved for military use. 'Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands,' Calderon said in a 2010 address to the U.S. Congress. 'Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.' It was Calderón who, near the end of his term, ventured to the northern border to unveil the massive billboard urging U.S. authorities to stop the weapons flow. His appeals, and those of subsequent Mexican leaders, went largely unheeded. The verdict is still out on whether Washington will follow up on its latest vows to throttle the gun traffic. 'The Trump administration has said very clearly that it wants to go after Mexican organized crime groups,' said David Shirk, a political scientist at San Diego University who studies violence in Mexico. 'And, if you're going to get serious about Mexican cartels, you have to take away their guns.' Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.
Washington Post
16 hours ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court to hear case on IQ tests and death penalty next term
The Supreme Court will hear a case next term centered on the role of multiple IQ scores in determining an Alabama murderer's eligibility for the death penalty, according to a list issued by the court late Friday. In Hamm v. Smith, the state of Alabama is arguing that Joseph Smith — who was sentenced to death for a murder in 1997 — should be executed because he has not proved that his IQ is 70 or below, as required by state law. However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith's death sentence after ruling he is intellectually disabled because the score on one of his IQ tests could fall below 70 when accounting for margin of error. Smith had obtained five IQ scores that ranged from 72 to 78. The Supreme Court justices agreed to hear Hamm v. Smith to determine a limited question: 'Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim,' referring to the 2002 landmark decision Atkins v. Virginia, which ruled that executing those with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In November, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision to remand the case for further consideration. In it, the justices said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — which had affirmed the lower court's decision to vacate Smith's death sentence — had been unclear in why it had issued that decision. In February, the state of Alabama again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying the Eleventh Circuit 'watered down the most objective prong of the test, overrode Alabama's definition of intellectual disability, and shattered Atkins's promise to leave meaningful discretion to the States.' 'This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests. There is no way to conclude from these five numbers that Smith's true IQ is likely to be 70 or below,' the state of Alabama argued, also adding that evaluating multiple IQ scores is 'complicated' and that the Supreme Court has not specified how to do it. 'Smith could take hundreds of IQ tests, score 75 on all of them, yet his IQ still 'could be' 70, according to the panel [the Eleventh Circuit], because every test could have erred by 5 points. The panel failed to appreciate that multiple tests together can provide a more accurate estimate than each test alone,' the state argued. The Supreme Court's next term is scheduled to begin in October. The list of new cases was not expected until Monday morning, but email notifications about the list were inadvertently sent Friday evening because of a technical glitch, so the court chose to release the list of cases earlier than scheduled. In a statement that accompanied the early release, court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said the notifications were sent prematurely because of an 'apparent software malfunction.' Justin Jouvenal contributed to this report.
