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 the development of New Mexican constitutional rights. But in a recent case concerning the due process rights of prisoners to obtain property from state-approved vendors, the New Mexico Supreme Court issued an order asking whether it should overrule its “interstitial” approach and, if so, what framework should replace it.
In response to this order, 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 called “primacy” to support the development of state constitutional rights. Under this primacy 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 also argues that New Mexico should no longer adhere to the preservation rules embedded in the interstitial framework, which have led litigants to inadvertently abandon state constitutional claims in the appellate process. The brief contends that such a state-focused approach is more consistent with New Mexico’s jurisprudence and constitutional structure than the interstitial approach.
Case Documents