In 1997, the New Mexico Supreme Court established that New Mexico judges hearing cases involving both federal and state constitutional claims could only rule on the state constitutional claim if a decision on the federal claim did not resolve the case. For nearly two decades, this federal-first “interstitial” approach to constitutional interpretation has impeded access to and the development of New Mexico’s constitutional rights.
This case, involving individuals and community organizations suing the state for failing to limit oil and gas pollution in violation of the New Mexico constitution’s “Pollution Control” Clause, Inherent Rights Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clauses presents the New Mexico Supreme Court with the opportunity to overrule its interstitial approach and replace it with a state-first approach.
The Brennan Center filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU-NM urging the New Mexico Supreme Court to abandon the interstitial approach and embrace a state-first approach to support the development of state constitutional rights. Under this approach, New Mexico judges would prioritize vindicating state constitutional rights before federal constitutional rights, ensuring that a robust layer of protection for individual rights at the state level can withstand sea changes in federal constitutional law. The brief contends that New Mexico judges should interpret the New Mexico Constitution holistically and independently and that such a state-focused approach is more consistent with New Mexico’s jurisprudence and constitutional structure than the interstitial approach.
Case Documents
