Latest news with #NewMexicoCourtofAppeals
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
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
5 days ago
- Business
New Mexico appeals court rejects lawsuit against oil and gas regulators
SANTA FE, N.M. -- A New Mexico appeals court rejected a lawsuit alleging that the nation's No. 2 oil-producing state failed to meet constitutional provisions for protecting against oil and gas industry pollution, in an opinion Tuesday. Environmental advocates vowed to appeal the matter to the state's top court. A panel of three judges on the New Mexico Court of Appeals found that it was beyond the judiciary's authority to weigh whether the pollution controls are adequate, writing that the state Constitution directs the Legislature to balance the benefits of environmental regulation with natural resources development. The 2023 lawsuit from a coalition of environmental groups was the first to invoke the constitution's pollution-control clause, a 1971 amendment requiring that New Mexico prevent the contamination of air, water and other natural resources. 'While plaintiffs correctly observe that, as the 'Land of Enchantment,' the state's beauty is central to our identity, we cannot ignore the long history of permitting oil and gas extraction within our borders," the panel wrote, invoking the state motto. 'If anything, the law, history, and tradition of our state demonstrates that resource extraction must be considered alongside, and must coexist with, pollution control legislation.' Gail Evans, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity and lead counsel on the case, said Tuesday's opinion would dismiss the case entirely if unchallenged and 'displays a fundamental misunderstanding of our constitution and constitutional rights.' She said plaintiffs intent to appeal to the state Supreme Court. 'Fifty years ago, New Mexico voted to amend the constitution and to provide protections from industry pollution and the court has found today that the amendment — the pollution control clause — is essentially meaningless, and that has to be wrong,' Evans said. The court challenge comes as New Mexico's state government rides a wave of record income from development in the Permian Basin, one of the world's most productive, oil-producing regions. Oil-related revenue collections underwrite a considerable amount of the state's budget, including public education. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's administration is policing the industry with regulations that target methane and other emissions. But the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups say these efforts are not enough and that the state is failing to enforce existing pollution-control measures. Attorneys for the Democratic-led Legislature and environmental regulators said the lawsuit threatened their constitutional authority. Appeals Judge Katherine Wray issued an additional concurring opinion, expressing further limitations of the pollution control clause.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New Mexico gun possession statute withstands constitutional challenge
Guns are shown at Caso's Gun-A-Rama in Jersey City, New Jersey, which has been open since 1967. (Photo by Aristide Economopoulos / NJ Monitor) The New Mexico Court of Appeals this week rejected a challenge to state law prohibiting people convicted of felonies in the past decade from possessing firearms. A jury convicted Jeremy Romero, of Las Vegas, of unlawfully possessing a firearm and evading Albuquerque police in August 2022, and a judge sentenced him to eight years in prison. A few days later, he challenged the felon-in-posession statute's constitutionality, arguing that it violates his Second Amendment right to possess a gun. In a unanimous opinion published on Wednesday, a three-judge panel at the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled that the law stands because there's a long history of Congress and state legislatures disarming people who are a danger to others, so the law itself is constitutional. In court briefings and at oral arguments in February, Romero's attorney argued that his prior convictions were for nonviolent offenses, so it was unconstitutional to apply the felon-in-possession statute against him. Mary Barket, Romero's public defender, also argued that the country's historical prohibitions on gun possession weren't similar enough to New Mexico's law because they targeted groups during times of war and conflict 'that posed an existential threat to the ruling government.' 'I do not think that that is similar to why we're trying to justify disarming felons, both violent and nonviolent,' Barket told the judges. The judges weren't convinced, and ruled that Romero did not challenge the trial court's findings that he is dangerous based on his criminal history of possessing and selling drugs and escape from house arrest, so the law is also constitutional as it was applied to him. While the ruling does not create any new rule about what's needed to prove that someone is dangerous, it does require that for the government to constitutionally apply the felon-in-possession statute to someone, prosecutors 'must demonstrate that the defendant presents a threat to others,' the judges wrote. Romero based his challenge on the legal standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 for analyzing the constitutionality of firearms regulations, in a case called Bruen. Nonprofit news organization The Trace reviewed more than 2,000 court cases that cited Bruen and found that people whose felony records bar them from possessing guns used the decision more often than any other group. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Clean car rules remain, despite another attempt to block
Feb. 13—SANTA FE — Another attempt to block a state mandate requiring an increased stock of electric vehicles delivered to New Mexico car dealerships has seemingly failed. The Senate Conservation Committee on Thursday tabled Senate Bill 139 on a 5-3 party-line vote. The legislation, with both Democratic and Republican sponsors, would directly oppose clean car rules adopted in 2023 by Albuquerque and state environmental boards, similar to an appeal denied by the New Mexico Court of Appeals to block the rules. However, since the Senate Conservation Committee voted 5-3 to table the legislation, the effort has stalled. Starting next year, the clean car rules require that 43% of all cars and light-duty trucks that manufacturers ship to auto dealerships in New Mexico must be zero-emission vehicles. Similarly, 15% of all commercial heavy-duty trucks shipped to dealerships must be zero-emission. The percentages increase over time: 51% clean car deliveries by model year 2028, 59% clean car deliveries by model year 2029, 68% clean car deliveries by model year 2030, 76% clean car deliveries by model year 2031, and 82% clean car deliveries by model year 2032. Bill proponents voiced concerns about a lack of charging stations in New Mexico and that rural residents, particularly those working in agriculture, are unable to use EVs to transport heavy tools or materials. There is a stark disparity in charging infrastructure in rural areas compared to urban areas in New Mexico. Of the 326 charging station in the state as of November, 73% are concentrated in metropolitan areas, according to a legislative policy report from December. That leaves 27% of stations in rural areas, including 4% located on tribal lands. While the New Mexico Department of Transportation plans to fill out infrastructure in the later years of its five-year interstate corridor buildout plan, according to the report, a federal administration seeking to block funding initiatives like EV chargers could complicate that. The Federal Highway Administration in 2024 announced a $63.8 million grant to install charging centers in Hidalgo and Doña Ana counties. But earlier this month, the FHA announced it would suspend states' EV infrastructure rollout plans. It's unclear if that money has been allocated or spent yet; the state's Department of Transportation didn't respond by time of publication to requests for information. Meanwhile, Larry Behrens, spokesperson for Power the Future, said the FHA suspension of the federal EV charger funding program is long overdue. "The reality is very simple: if electric vehicles, and their infrastructure, were in real demand, then taxpayers wouldn't need to spend billions to prop them up. ... Taking away public dollars from this program and letting New Mexicans decide what they want to drive is a great step toward fiscal sanity," he said. And, New Mexico has fewer charging stations than the average of similar states and the nation. However, it also has better EV-to-charging station ratios at 46.6 EVs to one station, compared to the national average of 87. Less than 1% of cars or other light-duty vehicles statewide are EVs, according to the report, though adoption has grown over the past decade. Advocates for SB139 argued the mandates could force local car dealerships out of business if salespeople aren't able to sell the EVs they acquire. Plus, the rules don't bar people from purchasing gas vehicles out of state, said Senate Minority Whip Pat Woods, R-Broadview, the bill's sponsor. That's why bill expert Ken Ortiz, with the New Mexico Automotive Dealers Association, said the rule does "nothing to clean up the air." Transportation is the state's second-largest greenhouse gas emissions source, accounting for 14% of all greenhouse gas emissions, according to the legislative report. Transportation is the leading emitter of greenhouse gases nationwide. The still-standing clean car rule is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 62%, nitrogen oxides by 43% and particulate matter by 24% from the transportation sector, according to the report. There are other ways for the SB139 to resurface, like a by committee motion to reconsider or reintroduction through blank legislation known as "dummy bills," so it's not definitively the end of the line. "This bill is not about electric vehicles. ... The bill is about government mandates, where the government is trying to tell New Mexicans what vehicles they should be driving," Woods said.
