Atencio v. State of New Mexico

There are over 70,000 oil and gas production sites in New Mexico, and counties with heavy oil and gas development suffer from some of the worst air quality in the country, according to the New Mexico Environment Department.  Individuals and organizations impacted by oil and gas extraction sued the State, alleging that its authorization of unmitigated oil and gas production and its failure to adequately control pollution violate multiple provisions of the New Mexico Constitution.

The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, but the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, holding that the plaintiffs’ claims under the New Mexico Constitution’s Pollution Control Clause were nonjusticiable and that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim under the state Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. In doing so, the Court of Appeals relied heavily on federal law: it applied the federal political question doctrine, invoked New Mexico’s federal-centric “interstitial approach,” and interpreted constitutional provisions separately rather than jointly, as federal courts increasingly do. The plaintiffs sought review, and the case is now pending before the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of New Mexico and the Brennan Center for Justice, filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs. The brief urges the New Mexico Supreme Court to replace its interstitial approach to state constitutional interpretation—which requires state courts to look first to federal jurisprudence and justify any departures—with an independent approach rooted in New Mexico law, history, and values.

Our amicus brief advances two main arguments. First, we argue the Court should retire the interstitial approach and adopt an independent framework for state constitutional interpretation that directs courts to interpret state constitutional provisions in light of one another and independently from federal law. That approach would be consistent with the structure of the New Mexico Constitution, the Court’s existing commitment to holistic interpretation, the values that originally motivated the interstitial approach itself, and principles of federalism.  Second, we argue that the Court should apply that framework to the plaintiffs’ claims and hold that, when considered together, the Pollution Control Clause and the Inherent Rights Clause establish an enhanced constitutional right to a healthful environment that can trigger heightened scrutiny under the state Due Process Clause or Equal Protection Clause.