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 involves a dispute over the authority of local governments in New Mexico to enact ordinances regulating abortion services. The State of New Mexico, represented by the Attorney General, challenged ordinances passed by Lea and Roosevelt counties and the cities of Clovis and Hobbs. These ordinances prohibited the mailing or receipt of abortion-related materials and imposed licensing requirements on abortion clinics, purportedly in compliance with the federal Comstock Act (paras 1-2, 9-10).
Procedural History
- Supreme Court of New Mexico, January 9, 2025: The court issued a stay on the enforcement of the ordinances and ordered briefing and oral argument on the matter (para 12).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner (State of New Mexico): Argued that the ordinances are preempted by state law, specifically the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act, and violate the Equal Rights Amendment of the New Mexico Constitution by imposing sex-based classifications (paras 3-4).
- Respondents (Lea and Roosevelt counties, cities of Clovis and Hobbs): Contended that the ordinances merely enforce compliance with federal law and do not restrict access to abortion, as no abortion providers operate in the jurisdictions affected by the ordinances (paras 19-20).
Legal Issues
- Whether the local ordinances regulating abortion services are preempted by state law.
- Whether the ordinances violate the Equal Rights Amendment of the New Mexico Constitution.
- Whether the ordinances exceed the authority of local governments under the New Mexico Constitution (paras 1, 3, 23).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico granted the writ of mandamus, prohibiting the enforcement of the ordinances and holding them preempted by state law (para 62).
Reasons
Per Bacon J. (Thomson CJ., Vigil, Vargas, and Zamora JJ. concurring):
The court found that the ordinances conflict with the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act, which explicitly preempts any local laws that interfere with access to reproductive health care (paras 45-48). The court also determined that the licensing ordinances are implicitly preempted by the Medical Practice Act, Medical Malpractice Act, and Uniform Licensing Act, as these state laws demonstrate the Legislature's intent to occupy the entire field of medical licensure and regulation (paras 49-53). Additionally, the Health Care Code preempts the ordinances by establishing a comprehensive licensing scheme for health facilities, which the local ordinances disrupt (paras 54-58). The court emphasized that local governments exceeded their constitutional and statutory authority by enacting ordinances that create private rights of action and penalties inconsistent with state law (paras 59-60). The decision was based solely on state law grounds, avoiding federal preemption issues (para 5).