Landmark New Mexico Education Equity Case Heads Back to Court Next Week
This article was originally published in Source New Mexico.
The parties in the long-running Yazzie-Martinez lawsuit over educational equity in New Mexico will meet in court next week to discuss a motion alleging the state has not complied with previous court orders, along with the plaintiffs' request for a 'remedial plan.'
The case, originally filed in 2014, led to a finding in 2018 by the late First Judicial District Court Judge Sarah Singleton, who found that the state was not providing equitable educational opportunities to Native students, English language learners, low-income students and students with disabilities. She ordered the state to take steps to address the needs of these at-risk students and ensure schools have the resources to provide them with the education they deserve.
Attorneys representing Louise Martinez and Wilhelmina Yazzie filed a joint motion of non-compliance in September 2024, arguing that the state has not made significant progress in addressing the needs of at-risk students. Specifically, in their motion, plaintiffs point to ongoing poor student performance; high turnover within the New Mexico Public Education Department; high teacher vacancy rates; and a lack of targeted funding for at-risk students.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
Since Singleton's decision, the state has increased funding for public education, but students are still being overlooked, Melissa Candelaria, education director for the NM Center on Law and Poverty, which represents the plaintiffs, told Source NM.
The motion hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m. Tuesday, April 29.
'We believe the court's ruling should have been a wakeup call,' Candelaria said. 'Our students can't afford more bureaucratic churn and empty promises from PED. And we believe, the plaintiffs believe, the court must step in to enforce a real community-driven plan that reflects the urgency and the gravity to improve the overall state education system.'
Candelaria noted that the joint motion was not opposed by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who represents the state in the case. Court documents state that Torrez 'agrees' that there has been 'insufficient compliance.' However, private counsel for the PED did oppose the motion, particularly the plaintiff's proposed remedial plan.
PED had not responded to a request from Source NM for comment prior to publication.
That plan, as detailed in court documents, includes nine components or goals, including: establishing a multicultural and multilingual educational framework; building an education workforce; increasing access to technology; developing methods of accountability; and strengthening the capacity of the PED.
'There's no longer a debate that a statewide education plan is necessary. Now, the decision is who leads that development,' Candelaria said.
Candelaria also told Source the plaintiffs propose the Legislative Education Study Committee take the lead in developing the remedial plan because the department's staff have knowledge and expertise in the area of education and have access to data. The department also has a director and permanent staff, as opposed to the PED, which has had multiple cabinet secretaries lead the department in the nearly seven years since Singleton's decision, she noted.
'Without a plan, the efforts by the Legislature will still be piecemeal and scattershot and it's not going to result in what we want to see in a transformed education system that's equitable and that builds on the strengths and provides for the needs of the four student groups in the case,' Candelaria said.
The PED opposes the motion on this point, according to court documents, and argues the education department should take the lead in developing the plan. The department also says more time is needed to create and then implement the plan. Plaintiffs suggest that the five-year plan should be developed within six months of this month's hearing.
Wilhelmina Yazzie, one of the original plaintiffs, told Source she feels 'very optimistic' ahead of the motion hearing and that she hopes the judge agrees a plan is necessary. She added that the inequities in public education were emphasized during the COVID-19 pandemic.
'Especially our tribal communities who are really deeply impacted by that, and they still continue to suffer to the present time right now and just by the state not taking the action that we need them to take,' Yazzie said.
Yazzie's son, Xavier Nez, 22, was in third grade when the lawsuit started. He is now in his third year studying at the University of New Mexico. Candelaria pointed out that since the 2018 court decision, multiple classes of students have made their way through the state's educational system and failed to receive a comprehensive education. Yazzie's youngest child, Kimimila Black Moon, is currently in third grade but attends private school.
'She's not in the public school because I still haven't seen changes,' she said.
Yazzie told Source that another goal of hers is to get out into communities throughout the state and speak with families because many parents are still unaware of the lawsuit and 'they're the ones that firsthand know what their children need, what they're lacking, how they're doing in school.'
Source New Mexico is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Source New Mexico maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Julia Goldberg for questions: info@sourcenm.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Robbers force family — including 3 kids — into basement and duct-tape them during armed Queens home invasion
Two thugs armed with guns, one disguised as an Amazon worker, pushed their way into a home in Queens and tied up the family – including three young children – and duct taped their mouths shut, according to law enforcement sources. The thieves, one wearing an Amazon vest the other a black hoodie, forced their way into a single-family home in Whitestone Monday morning just after 9 a.m., police and sources said. One of the family's four children who had already left for school accidentally left the door open making it easier for the gunman to enter the home, law enforcement sources said. The hooligans forced the family into the basement at gunpoint, tied them up and stretched duct tape over their mouths, sources said. The pair raided the home and fled with an unknown amount of cash and jewelry using the victim's own car, a silver Chrysler minivan, as the getaway vehicle. Investigators found it abandoned two blocks away, police said. John Nardone had just climbed out of his car to get to work when he saw the terrified father running out of the house tugging at something on his face. Nardone realized it was duct tape. 'I said, 'are you ok?'' Nardone said. 'He said his kids were in the basement.' Nardone called 911 immediately, according to FreedomNewsTV. 'I honestly didn't really know what he was saying. He didn't really speak the greatest English,' the witness told FreedomNewsTV. 'He seemed really rattled and like he did not know even what was going on. But he was definitely very nervous.' Two police cars responded to the house, which is across the street from PS 193 Alfred J. Kennedy Elementary School, within minutes, Nardone said. He told officers what little he knew. 'He was definitely disheveled,' the witness said of the terrified father. 'He was definitely, like, scared. He probably didn't know what just happened himself.' Nardone said he was nervous himself because he was starting his second day at a new job and didn't want to be late. The scene was so bizarre that at first he questioned what he was seeing. 'I was wondering if this was real, because that,' he said referring to the victim running out of a house, 'I've never seen something like that, like a guy come out of his house with duct tape all over his face.' Police are still searching for the suspects and said the incident remains under investigation. Investigators are looking for any video they can find to help identify the brazen gunman.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
£140bn of transport investment missed over last government says new report
The North of England would have received an extra £140 billion in transport investment under the previous government if funding levels had been the same as in London, research has claimed. Independent analysis by think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) looked at Treasury figures between 2009/10 and 2022/23, during which time the Conservatives were in power. It reached the figure, which it said was enough to build seven Elizabeth Lines, by considering the amount of spending per person across the different English regions over that period. While England as a whole saw £592 spent per person each year, London received double that amount with £1,183 spent per person, the IPPR said. The entire North region saw £486 spent per person, with the North East and North West seeing £430 and £540 spent per person respectively. READ MORE: Upgrades to Energy Coast train line 'crucial' for Cumbria | News and Star Cumbrian MPs have called for a 'major upgrade' of the Cumbrian coast train line to help boost economic growth. Former prime minister Rishi Sunak promised to 'upgrade' the energy coast train line linking Carlisle, Workington and Barrow after cancelling the leg of HS2 from Birmingham to Manchester.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump orders Marines to Los Angeles as protests escalate over immigration raids, demonstrating the president's power to deploy troops on US soil
President Donald Trump ordered a contingent of about 700 Marines to Los Angeles on June 9, 2025, in response to what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described as 'increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings.' This dramatic escalation of the military presence in Los Angeles followed Trump's June 7 order to send about 2,000 National Guard troops into the city. Both measures were Trump's response to what he called 'numerous incidents of violence and disorder' by those protesting his administration's actions rounding up and deporting immigrants in the Los Angeles area. State and local officials decried Trump's actions, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom calling the move 'purposefully inflammatory,' as well as 'an illegal act.' California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to block its deployment of National Guard members. Other critics of Trump's actions said the scale and character of the protests did not warrant such extreme measures. Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with William C. Banks, a scholar of the role of the military in domestic affairs, to understand the extent of a president's power to send American troops to Los Angeles. Can American troops be used inside the country? They can, but it is an extraordinary exercise of authority to use troops domestically. It has rarely been done in the U.S. as a way of responding to a civil disturbance. Congress has delegated that authority of deploying American troops domestically to the president in limited circumstances. Otherwise, the only authority is exercised by governors, who have control of the National Guard. Why was American law set up this way? The U.S. was founded in response to heavy-handed English use of the military by King George to interfere with the civil liberties and rights of the colonists in the lead-up to the American Revolution. So, when the founders created the U.S. Constitution, they were very careful to insert roadblocks that would make it difficult for the government to use troops to carry out its own programs. The country's framers also understood there might be occasions when it would be necessary to use the military domestically. They did a couple of things to control the exercise of military authority. One was to ensure that the commander in chief of the military was a civilian. Second, they gave the authority to call up the National Guard, what was known as the 'militia' in those days, to Congress, not to the president, in order to create a separation of powers. Under what circumstances can the president deploy troops to an American city? Under the Insurrection Act, which was signed into law in 1807, a president can deploy troops during what is called an insurrection, simply meaning when all hell breaks loose. The president can decide that it is 'impracticable,' according to the Insurrection Act, to enforce the laws of the U.S. in a given city, and he may call forth the military or the National Guard to help restore law and order. In order to invoke the Insurrection Act, the president first has to make a proclamation to those he calls the insurrectionists to cease and desist. Unless the alleged insurrectionists immediately do what the president says, the president then has the authority to deploy forces. Trump has repeatedly called the protesters in Los Angeles 'insurrectionists,' but has also walked those remarks back and hasn't made any kind of formal proclamation yet. When Trump ordered California's National Guard members to deploy to Los Angeles on June 7, he did so on a narrow statutory authority to protect federal buildings, properties and personnel that were trying to enforce immigration laws. What is the Posse Comitatus Act and how does it apply to the current situation in Los Angeles? Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. This act's name derives from an arcane Latin term that means 'the power of the county.' This law establishes a legal presumption in the U.S. that the military, if it is deployed domestically, should not engage in law enforcement. This act is an important part of American law. It means that the military and National Guard are trained on this principle that they are not to engage in domestic law enforcement activities. Those are reserved for police, sheriffs and marshals. Invoking the Insurrection Act is the principal exception to this law. So the Insurrection Act allows the military to act as law enforcement officials? That's right. By invoking the Insurrection Act the military could act as cops and have the right to arrest, investigate and detain civilians, with only the Constitution as a check on its power. This is not a situation that California National Guard members have trained for. They are trained to fight actual wildfires, but this is something entirely different. Are there any legal roadblocks that could curb the president's authority to send U.S. troops to Los Angeles? The short answer to this question is no. Can state governors or other elected officials prevent U.S. troops from being sent to their cities? In many ways that is the main question right now. California's governor, Gavin Newsom, has said that the state doen't need these military forces. Newsom's June 9 lawsuit against the Trump administration argues that the authority over the National Guard is reserved for states, 'unless the State requests or consents to federal control.' That has not happened in this case. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: William C. Banks, Syracuse University Read more: From Kent State to Los Angeles, using armed forces to police civilians is a high-risk strategy Debates over presidential power to suspend habeas corpus resurface in Trump administration In a new era of campus upheaval, the 1970 Kent State shootings show the danger of deploying troops to crush legal protests William C. Banks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.