Court of Appeals rejects lawsuit targeting NM's oil and gas pollution enforcement
While the ruling is expected to be appealed, it dealt a blow to plaintiffs who claimed the state's failure to enact strict pollution control measures had led to damaging health issues.
Those plaintiffs included Native American activists and several environmental groups who filed the lawsuit and lamented its dismissal.
"New Mexicans amended our constitution 50 years ago to protect our residents from pollution," said Gail Evans, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "With this terrible ruling, the court has eviscerated our constitutionally protected rights."
She also predicted the Tuesday ruling would lead to more air pollution, more contaminated land and water, and more sickness in New Mexico 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," Evans added.
The lawsuit was filed in state District Court in 2023, with plaintiffs attorneys at the time comparing the effort to a court challenge targeting New Mexico's public education system that led to a landmark 2018 ruling.
But a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals found a constitutional provision declaring the protection of the state's "beautiful and healthful environment" to be of fundamental public interest does not compel certain action by the legislative and executive branches.
"By its plain text, the (pollution control clause) contains no enforceable right, guaranteed to any individual or group, to be free from a given amount of pollution," Court of Appeals Judge Miles Hanisee wrote in his ruling. "Nor can it be inferred to create an enforceable right to a beautiful and healthful environment."
Missi Currier, the president and CEO of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, commended the court's ruling to dismiss the lawsuit.
"This decision affirms the importance of maintaining a clear, constitutional separation between policymaking and judicial interpretation," Currier said in a statement.
She also said the state's oil and gas industry is committed to responsible development, environmental stewardship and economic opportunity for state residents.
"We believe that meaningful progress on climate and energy must come from collaboration, innovation, and respect for the rule of law," Currier added.
Oil production has surged in New Mexico in recent years, driving state revenue collections to record-high levels. Oil and gas revenue make up about 35% of the state's $13.6 billion in projected revenue for the coming fiscal year, according to legislative data.
Specifically, New Mexico crude oil production more than doubled from March 2020 to March of this year, jumping from 34,873 barrels to 69,958 barrels.
But some New Mexicans say that production boom has come at a high cost, citing elevated methane emissions — even after enactment of a new state methane rule in 2021 — and health issues in the Permian Basin and Four Corners region, where much of the oil and natural gas activity is located.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals' ruling comes less than a year after a state judge in Santa Fe allowed the case to move forward.
Attorneys for the state and top state officials, including Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, had previously filed a motion in September 2023 seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds of separation of powers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Courts keep shredding campaign finance laws. It's time to amend the Constitution.
Advertisement Things weren't always this bad. Generations ago, voters demanded laws to reduce the power of special interests, curtail corruption, and ensure that every citizen could speak freely and had equal representation. But over time, the Supreme Court has taken a sledgehammer to those safeguards. The crusade began in the mid-1970s with a case called Buckley v. Valeo, in which the Supreme Court invented a new legal theory: Individuals are entitled, under the First Amendment, to freely spend money to influence election outcomes, no matter how extravagant or obviously corrosive. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The idea that the First Amendment's free speech guarantee applies to money in politics isn't grounded in the text of the Constitution. Nevertheless, over the past 50 years, lawyers and judges have pushed that 'money equals free speech' doctrine to its absolute limits, dismantling basic anticorruption measures and enabling an elite class of big spenders to consolidate political power. In 2010, the Supreme Court unleashed a new flood of anonymous 'dark money' with its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which held that individuals and corporate interests can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. This July, the United States Court of Appeals in Boston Advertisement The consequences for American freedom and self-government have been grave. It's no wonder that nearly Despite the overwhelming demand for change, no meaningful legislation can survive the current judicial precedent. The Supreme Court has decided that almost any policy meant to level the playing field is inherently unconstitutional. That means there is only one way to end the corruption crisis: We must unite citizens and lawmakers around a constitutional amendment. Related : Nearly a decade ago, I cofounded American Promise, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization based in Concord. In the years since, we have built a national movement behind the how legislators should fix the problem. Rather, it gives Americans and our elected officials the freedom to do whatever makes sense for their states, such as more effective disclosure requirements, Advertisement Americans have already amended our founding document 27 times, often to correct an injustice. In fact, the 19th Amendment was eventually adopted in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Minor v. Happersett in 1874, which ruled that the 14th Amendment did not provide women the equal right to vote. The 19th Amendment effectively overruled the Supreme Court's decision by explicitly stating that women have the right to vote. The same would hold true for this new constitutional amendment, which would clarify that the First Amendment should not be interpreted to mean that money is synonymous with free speech when it comes to our elections. Together, these reforms would transform our political system for the better. Lawmakers could spend far less time fundraising and more time engaging with their constituents, preparing for hearings, and developing new legislation. The electoral incentives would also shift, and voters, for their part, could expect more competitive primary elections; better candidates with more diverse skills and experiences; and, over time, less ideological extremism. Many state lawmakers and their constituents want to reduce the influence of money and outside spending in their elections but are repeatedly thwarted when they take action. Just days after a federal court struck down Maine's election-security law, another federal judge invalidated a popular Maine law that limited donations to super PACs. Similarly, when Alaska sought to limit out-of-state contributions, federal judges struck down those efforts, citing First Amendment concerns. These outcomes are a key reason why many states are calling on Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to restore their ability to regulate campaign finance. In the early years of American Promise, people questioned whether a constitutional amendment was realistic. After all, it's a grueling process. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They also need to win the support of 38 state governments. But momentum is on our side. Advertisement A new revolution is underway, and we have a once-in-a-generation chance to deliver on the founding promise of this country: a government by the people, for the people. It won't be easy. After all, we are fighting the most powerful forces in the world — but we have been in this situation before, and we have emerged victorious.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Brazil's top court rules US laws do not apply to its territory
Brazil's Supreme Court ruled on Monday that foreign legislation did not have jurisdiction in its country, after the United States used a law to sanction a judge on the court. Washington used the Magnitsky Act, a US law which provides for sanctions against individuals accused of human rights violations around the globe, to impose restrictions on Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is presiding over the trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro's alleged coup plot. Moraes is also the judge which banned the social network X, formerly Twitter, in Brazil last year. "Judge Flavio Dino, of the Federal Supreme Court, suspended the effectiveness of judicial decisions, laws, decrees, and executive orders of foreign nations in our country," Brazil's high court said in a statement. According to the Constitution of Brazil, foreign court decisions "can only be enforced in Brazil upon approval or in compliance with international judicial cooperation mechanisms," the court said. Dino said this same principle applied to recent decisions from UK court rulings made against the Brazilian Mining Association (Ibram) for the Mariana and Brumadinho dam disasters. Although the ruling did not explicitly mention the Magnitsky Act, a Brazilian court source told AFP that the ruling "in theory" invalidates the law in Brazil -- though Washington has already contested this interpretation. "No foreign court can invalidate United States sanctions -- or spare anyone from the steep consequences of violating them," the US government's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs said in a statement on X after the ruling. "Alexandre de Moraes is toxic to all legitimate businesses and individuals seeking access to the US and its markets," it continued. "US persons are prohibited from transacting with him and non-US persons must tread carefully: those providing material support to human rights abusers face sanctions risk themselves." The United States at the end of July had blocked all of Moraes' assets in the country as a result of his work on the Bolsonaro trial. The case against the former Brazilian president, an ally of US President Donald Trump, has sparked a diplomatic and trade spat between Brasilia and Washington. The verdict for the trial is expected to be announced by the court between September 2 and 12. jss/nn/jgc/sla
Politico
7 hours ago
- Politico
‘We are arresting the mayor right now, per the deputy attorney general'
Less than two weeks later, federal prosecutors dropped a trespassing charge against Baraka. But a federal judge chided the effort to charge him in the first place. Magistrate Judge André M. Espinosa called it an 'embarrassing retraction' that 'suggests a failure to adequately investigate, to carefully gather facts and to thoughtfully consider the implications of your actions before wielding your immense power.' Baraka is the progressive mayor of New Jersey's largest city and at the time of his arrest was seeking the Democratic nomination for governor, an election he has since lost. Separately, he is suing the Trump administration for 'malicious prosecution' in a lawsuit that names acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba and Ricky Patel, a special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations' Newark Division. According to a comparison of court documents filed in the Baraka and McIver cases, Patel is the special agent overheard on the bodycam footage referring to the deputy attorney general. McIver tries to harness Trump immunity ruling The new revelations about the episode came in legal briefs asking to have McIver's own case thrown out. As part of that effort, McIver asked the judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Jamel Semper, to rule that lawmakers have the same kind of immunity from prosecutions that the Supreme Court gave Trump. Her attorneys said McIver's visit to the detention facility, known as Delaney Hall, was a legislative act she cannot be prosecuted for. They cited the Supreme Court ruling last summer that gave Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for some actions he took during his first presidential term while fighting to subvert the 2020 election. McIver's attorneys also argued that she is facing intimidation and that Habba's office, which is prosecuting the case, is undermining the Constitution's 'Speech or Debate' Clause. That clause grants members of Congress a form of immunity that is mostly impenetrable in investigations relating to the official duties of lawmakers, their aides or other congressional officials. The Department of Homeland Security said the argument is laughable. 'Suggesting that physically assaulting a federal law enforcement officer is 'legitimate legislative activity' covered by legislative immunity makes a joke of all three branches of government at once,' the Homeland Security Department's assistant secretary, Tricia McLaughlin, said in a statement. If lawmakers don't continue to receive such protections, McIver's legal team warns of dire consequences for the country. 'If these charges are allowed to move forward, they will send a chilling message to Congress on the risk it takes when it scrutinizes the Administration's activities,' McIver's defense team wrote. 'The Speech or Debate Clause was designed to prevent that kind of message and intimidation.' Former Sen. Bob Menendez — Rob Menendez's father — has tried to use the speech or debate clause to shield himself from corruption charges. He is now serving an 11-year prison sentence and appealing the conviction. McIver's attorneys cited a 3rd Circuit ruling against Menendez in 2016 — who was then facing different corruption charges that were later dropped — as making clear that members of Congress do have immunity for legislative actions but that the allegations against him were for things beyond the scope of that immunity. McIver's team argued the Menendez case 'could not be more different' from hers. In another legal filing made last week, McIver also sought to dismiss the charges against her based on unconstitutional 'selective' and 'vindictive' prosecution, noting that the Justice Department walked away from prosecutions of hundreds of defendants from Jan. 6, 2021, despite clear video of many attacking police officers.
