AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case revolves around the Central Consolidated School District (CCSD) and its Board's decision to expand in-person learning for all public school students amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. This decision prompted concerns from the Navajo Nation and led to the National Education Association of New Mexico and the Central Consolidated Education Association filing a petition for a writ of mandamus. They argued that the Respondents failed to fulfill their duty to engage in meaningful, good-faith tribal consultation with the Navajo Nation as required by the New Mexico State-Tribal Collaboration Act and the New Mexico Indian Education Act (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners: Argued that Respondents failed to meet their mandatory, non-discretionary duty to engage in meaningful, good-faith tribal consultation with the Navajo Nation pursuant to the New Mexico State-Tribal Collaboration Act and the New Mexico Indian Education Act (para 3).
• Respondents: Conceded that the court's decision would not affect their actions taken in response to the writ, as they had already engaged in tribal collaboration and offered a choice of in-person or virtual instruction. They argued for the court to address the basic issue of whether the statutes impose a nondiscretionary duty to consult with the Navajo Nation in these circumstances to avoid setting confusing precedent (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the New Mexico State-Tribal Collaboration Act and the New Mexico Indian Education Act impose a nondiscretionary duty on the Respondents to consult with the Navajo Nation in the context of expanding in-person learning during the COVID-19 pandemic (para 3).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed as moot (para 7).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judge Kristina Bogardus, Judge Jane B. Yohalem, and Judge Michael D. Bustamante (retired, sitting by designation), concluded that the issue presented was moot because the underlying health emergency that precipitated the dispute had expired. The Court found no actual controversy existed as the health emergency declaration had ended, and thus, no actual relief could be granted by reversing the district court's decision. The Court also declined to recognize the Respondents' argument for considering the issue to avoid confusing precedent as a new exception to mootness. It further analyzed and dismissed the application of recognized exceptions to mootness, concluding that the issue did not involve a constitutional question or affect a fundamental right, nor was it a situation that would evade review in the future (paras 5-7).