
Judge issues latest order in Yazzie-Martinez case
Apr. 29—A Santa Fe judge determined the New Mexico Public Education Department had not held up its end of the bargain in a decade-long legal battle over the quality of education it provides Native American and underserved students.
Judge Matthew Wilson on Tuesday ordered PED to create a plan to fix its primary and secondary education system in the latest chapter in what has become known as the Yazzie-Martinez case.
"The New Mexico Public Education Department welcomes Judge Wilson's decision to lead development of a plan providing all New Mexico students an excellent education and that will lead to resolution of the Martinez-Yazzie lawsuit," PED spokesperson Janelle Garcia said in a statement. "Improving student outcomes is central to our mission, and this plan will support lasting improvements to our educational system."
The case was first brought about in 2014 when Wilhelmina Yazzie, the parent of a student at Gallup-McKinley County Schools, and Louise Martinez, the parent of an Albuquerque Public Schools student, joined other parents to file suit against the state and task it to improve its education system.
The New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty and Mexican American Legal Defense Fund represented the parents in the suit against the state, and in a landmark 2018 ruling, Judge Sarah Singleton determined that the state was violating students' constitutional rights by not providing sufficient education.
As a result, it was mandated that the state begin improving its education system. Wilson's order on Tuesday determined that PED had not complied with that ruling.
"In the more than six years since the state and PED were ordered to take immediate steps to fix the system, PED has done little beyond making mere efforts or isolated reforms," Alisa Diehl, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said during the hearing. "PED has had ample opportunity to produce a plan of its own, but it hasn't done so."
For its part, PED's attorney contested the state's education department had made changes since the 2018 ruling.
"Plaintiffs have suggested that the court must do so because PED has not taken its responsibility seriously and that we've been given six years and nothing's happened. Simply untrue," said Taylor Rahn, the attorney representing the PED. "Many things have changed; some areas of student achievement have improved, but importantly, the inputs have changed to the tune of $2 billion. There is increased accountability that did not exist at the time of trial."
She also said that the plaintiff's statement that PED was violating the Indian Education Act, the Hispanic Education Act, the Bilingual, Multicultural Education Act and the Black Education Act wasn't accurate.
"Plaintiffs make a sweeping argument that because these groups are not performing at the same level as their at-risk peers, those statutes must be being violated by PED," Rahn said. "However, those statutes don't require exact parity in achievement."
According to the state's latest monitoring report, the NM Vistas report card, Black, Native American and Hispanic students were below the statewide averages in reading, math and science proficiency.
Historically and recently, New Mexico has ranked among the worst states in the nation for educational outcomes. U.S. News recently ranked it 50th in the country for education and in 2024 the National Assessment of Educational Progress found New Mexico's fourth and eighth grade students lagged behind the national averages in reading, math and science proficiency.
"This court's ruling in 2018 gave families and communities all across the state of New Mexico a real sense of hope. Hope that transformative change to their children's education was underway," Preston Sanchez, another attorney representing the plaintiffs, said during the hearing. "New Mexico's education system is still ranked the worst public school system in the United States, a status that has not changed since we filed this case in 2014."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
More Americans see increased influence from religion in US: Gallup
More Americans said they see an increased influence from religion in the U.S., according to a new Gallup poll. The Wednesday poll found that 34 percent of respondents said they believe 'religion as a whole is increasing its influence on American life,' up 14 points from May 2024. In December, 35 percent said the same about religion, one point higher than the recent Gallup poll. Back in April, President Trump pledged that 'religion is coming back to America' after kicking off his first White House Easter Egg Roll since coming back to office 'We're bringing religion back in America. We're bringing a lot of things back, but religion is coming back to America. That's why you see the kind of numbers that you see, the spirit and the kind of numbers that you see,' the president said in April. In Wednesday's Gallup poll, 59 percent of respondents said they believe religion's influence is dropping, down 2 points from December. Two percent also said religion's influence is the 'same' while 5 percent had 'no opinion.' In February, a Pew Research Center survey found that a decline in the number of Americans who identify as Christian appeared to be slowing down following years of losses. The Gallup poll took place from May 1 to 18, featuring 1,003 people and plus or minus 4 percentage points as a margin of sampling error.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
North Dakota governor's veto ‘clear and unambiguous,' attorney general says
Attorney General Drew Wrigley and Chief Deputy Attorney General Claire Ness talk to reporters June 11, 2025, about an opinion related to Gov. Kelly Armstrong's veto. (Mary Steurer/North Dakota Monitor) North Dakota's attorney general said Wednesday Gov. Kelly Armstrong's veto was 'sound,' dismissing a differing conclusion by legislative staff that his intent was unclear and the Legislature should hold a special session to fix the error. The opinion by Attorney General Drew Wrigley means $35 million for housing programs Armstrong's office unintentionally crossed out in a May line-item veto can move forward unless the matter is challenged in court or the Legislature reconvenes. Armstrong's veto message for the Industrial Commission budget described cutting $150,000 set aside for a Native American-focused organization to fund a homelessness liaison position. But a markup of the bill also crossed out a $35 million appropriation for affordable housing and homelessness — funding Armstrong had intended to leave intact. His office later said there had been a 'staff markup error.' 'Prudent remedy' for veto error is special session, Legislative Council advises Since then, the Legislature has been trying to figure out what actions, if any, must be taken to address the veto — including the possibility of calling a special session. Wrigley found that the unintentional markup does not change the substance of the veto because Armstrong's written veto message was 'clear and unambiguous' about what parts of Senate Bill 2014 he intended to cut. He said in a Wednesday press conference that a 'visual image' should not 'take precedence over the written orders, the detailed description offered by the one person with the power to veto.' Attorneys for North Dakota's legislative branch in a Friday memo took a very different position, advising the Legislature that calling a special session would be the 'prudent remedy' for the mistake. In its memo, Legislative Council said legal precedent suggests the marked-up bill is part of the official veto document. 'It would not be appropriate to allow the Governor and Attorney General to resolve the ambiguity by agreement,' the memo states. Doing so could have unintended consequences for how ambiguous vetoes are handled in the future, Legislative Council said. Wrigley called the Legislative Council memo a 'political document' and said the Attorney General's Office has the final say on the matter unless the issue is challenged in court. 'The power in question is strictly the governor's power and it has to be in compliance with the constitution and laws of North Dakota,' he told the North Dakota Monitor last week. 'That's the only assessment here. There's no role for this in Legislative Council. They have no authority in this regard.' Armstrong, whose office requested the opinion, in a statement agreed with Wrigley's findings. 'We appreciate the Attorney General's determination, which clarifies the matter, avoids the cost of a special session and nullifies the flawed interpretation that initially blew this up into something much bigger than it needed to be,' he said. A special session is estimated to cost $65,000 per day, Legislative Council has said. The Legislature could still decide to reconvene for a special session to override the veto if it chooses to, Wrigley said. Legislative Council Director John Bjornson said the office did not immediately have a statement on the opinion. This story was updated. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Attorney General Opinion
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
DOJ: Trump can abolish protected monuments set aside by past presidents
President Trump can abolish national monuments that were protected from energy development and other activities by past presidents, the Justice Department (DOJ) has determined. The department issued a legal opinion this week that Trump can shrink or eliminate national monuments, overturning a 1938 opinion saying presidents did not have the power to abolish them. 'The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits a President to alter a prior declaration of a national monument, including by finding that the 'landmarks,' 'structures,' or 'objects' identified in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the Act's Protections,' the new DOJ opinion states. While this opinion does not in itself overturn any national monument boundaries, it sets the stage for doing so in the future. The document specifically names two national monuments set aside by the Biden administration, the Chuckwalla National Monument and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument. These monuments, located in California, encompass a combined 848,000 acres of particular significance to Native American tribes in the region. The White House told The Washington Post that it planned to eliminate them after saying in a later-scrubbed fact sheet that it was 'terminating proclamations declaring nearly a million acres constitute new national monuments that lock up vast amounts of land.' President Trump has, in the past, sought to shrink monuments designated by past presidents, including Utah's Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments. The legal opinion issued Tuesday said the prior 1938 opinion, named for monument Castle Pinckney, made reducing the size of those monuments more complicated. 'The ongoing existence of Castle Pinckney has needlessly complicated litigation challenging the President's authority to alter the declarations of his predecessors,' it stated. 'Following President Trump's 2017 decision to substantially reduce but not eliminate the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, the parties spent considerable resources litigating whether those actions should be considered revocations … in no small part because Castle Pinckney opined that reduction but not elimination of a parcel was permissible.' Environmental advocates criticized the new opinion. 'The Trump administration can come to whatever conclusion it likes, but the courts have upheld monuments established under the Antiquities Act for over a century. This opinion is just that, an opinion. It does not mean presidents can legally shrink or eliminate monuments at will,' Jennifer Rokala, executive director of The Center for Western Priorities, said in a written statement. 'Once again the Trump administration finds itself on the wrong side of history and at odds with Western voters,' she added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.