cases

  1. State v. Gomez

    • What the case was about
      • Search and seizure (police search of a vehicle)
      • Defendant argued violation of constitutional rights
    • Holding
      • Courts must use the interstitial approach:
      • Federal law first
      • Then state constitution if needed
    • What it means for NM
      • NM courts can expand rights beyond federal law
      • Established independent constitutional analysis
    • How to use it
      • Anytime you say:
      • "state courts are not bound by federal precedent"
      • "federal floor, not a ceiling"

  2. Yazzie Martinez v State of New Mexico

    • What the case was about
      • Students were not receiving adequate education
      • Especially impacted:
      • Indigenous students
      • low-income students
      • English learners
    • Holding
      • NM violated the constitution
      • Education is a fundamental right
      • State must provide sufficient education
    • What it means for NM
      • Example of a positive (affirmative) right
      • Courts can force the government to act
    • How to use it
      • Positive rights
      • Courts stepping in
      • Structure → rights

  3. Atencio v State of New Mexico

    • What the case was about
      • Plaintiffs argued for a constitutional right to a clean environment
    • Holding
      • Court declined to recognize a broad enforceable right
    • What it means for NM
      • Shows limits of judicial power
      • Courts defer to legislature/executive
    • How to use it
      • Contrast with Yazzie
      • Separation of powers
      • Courts don’t always expand rights

  4. Rucho v Common Cause

    • What the case was about
      • Partisan gerrymandering challenge
    • Holding
      • Federal courts will not hear these claims
      • It’s a political question
    • What it means
      • No federal protection for gerrymandering claims
    • How to use it
      • "federal courts declined to act"
      • Setup for NM comparison

  5. Grisham v Van Soelen

    • What the case was about
      • Challenge to redistricting in NM
    • Holding
      • NM courts can review these claims
    • What it means for NM
      • State courts can act when federal courts won’t
      • Independent constitutional authority
    • How to use it
      • Compare directly to Rucho
      • "state courts fill the gap"

  6. Dobbs v Jackson Womens Health Organization

    • What the case was about
      • Abortion rights
    • Holding
      • Overturned Roe
      • No federal constitutional protection
    • What it means
      • States now control abortion rights
    • How to use it
      • "removal of federal protection"
      • leads into NM response

  7. New Mexico Right to Choose NARAL v Johnson

    • What the case was about
      • Medicaid funding for abortion services
    • Holding
      • NM must fund medically necessary abortions
      • Based on equal protection
    • What it means for NM
      • NM protects abortion rights independently
      • Example of state expanding rights