Serving the High Plains
Serving the High Plains
The New Mexico Supreme Court struck down ordinances by counties and cities that would have restricted abortions or regulated abortion clinics or providers.
The court’s unanimous opinion on Thursday invalidated ordinances by Roosevelt and Lea counties and the cities of Clovis and Hobbs that attempted to restrict access to abortion services.
The court issued an order — a writ of mandamus — prohibiting the local governments from enforcing the ordinances.
“Our Legislature granted to counties and municipalities all powers and duties not inconsistent with the laws of New Mexico. The ordinances violate this core precept and invade the Legislature’s authority to regulate access to and provision of reproductive healthcare,” Justice C. Shannon Bacon wrote in the court’s opinion.
“Therefore, based on the independent and adequate state law grounds provided in the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act, the Medical Practice Act, the Medical Malpractice Act, and the Health Care Code, as well as the Uniform Licensing Act, we hold the ordinances are preempted in their entirety.”
Because the court resolved the case based on state law, the justices declined to address whether the ordinances violated New Mexico constitutional protections.
“Our forbearances of the constitutional questions, however, should not be construed as commentary on their merit. Rather, we heed the canon of constitutional avoidance and refrain from deciding constitutional issues unnecessary to the disposition of this case,” Bacon wrote.
The local ordinances attempted to restrict abortion access by purportedly requiring compliance with the federal Comstock Act banning the mailing of abortion-related materials.
The attorney general filed a lawsuit in the state Supreme Court last year to invalidate the ordinances.
Abortion-rights advocates hailed the court’s decision, including Clovis-based Eastern New Mexico Rising.
“This is a win for residents of Eastern New Mexico in particular, sending the message loud and clear that local governments are not exempted” from state law, Eastern New Mexico Rising co-founder Laura Wight said, adding the the ruling ensures “all citizens of New Mexico are protected equally under the law.”
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham also praised the ruling.
“Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision affirms what we’ve known all along – healthcare decisions belong to New Mexican women and their doctors, not politicians. While some communities may disagree, our state constitution and laws are clear. No city or county can restrict the fundamental rights of New Mexicans or override state law,” she stated in a news release Thursday.
“This ruling ensures that New Mexico will remain a safe haven for healthcare access and individual freedom. We will continue protecting reproductive rights while neighboring states strip them away.”
Justin Howalt, city manager for the city of Clovis, said “the city of Clovis is reviewing today’s Supreme Court ruling and it has no comment in relation to the matter.”
Lea and Roosevelt counties did not respond to a request for comment.
The Republican Party of New Mexico stated the decision blocks local officials from “enacting pro-life laws” which “undermines local governance and disregards the values of our communities.”
The four cities and counties — “Respondents” in the lawsuit — enacted their local laws after a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 ended the federal constitutional right to an abortion.
Roosevelt County’s ordinance would have allowed any person other than a government employee to bring a civil lawsuit against someone and seek damages of at least $100,000 for each violation of the Comstock Act.
Other ordinances also imposed penalties for violations of the federal law.
“While we decide this case under preemption doctrine, we strongly admonish Respondents for exceeding their authority under Article X, Section 6(D) of the New Mexico Constitution,” the court wrote, referencing a provision on local government powers.
“Creating a private right of action and damages award that is clearly intended to punish protected conduct far exceeds any interest that is ‘incident[al] to the exercise of an independent municipal power.’”
The state’s Health Care Freedom Act was signed into law in 2023. It prohibits public bodies or individuals from interfering with access to reproductive or gendering affirming healthcare.
“While the Ordinances restate the Comstock Act’s prohibitions, they do not, as Respondents claim, simply ‘parrot’ federal law,” the court ruled. “They go significantly beyond federal requirements by, among other things, purporting to regulate access to and licensure of so-called abortion clinics and physicians in a manner that prohibits or interferes with access to reproductive healthcare.
“Our Legislature’s adoption of the Health Care Freedom Act is an express rebuke of Respondents’ action. Indeed, the Legislature seemingly contemplated local dissent and ensured that any conflicting law would be expressly preempted by the Act.”
Several ordinances authorized city or county officials to approve or deny licenses for abortion clinics and providers. The court concluded the Medical Practice Act, the Medical Malpractice Act, the Uniform Licensing Act and Health Care Code implicitly preempt such ordinances.
The court rejected arguments by the local governments that their ordinances constituted a lawful exercise of their police powers for the health and safety of local residents.
“Because Respondents’ authority to regulate healthcare access and physician licensure is entirely preempted, Respondents’ police powers in these areas are extremely limited,” the court wrote.
“To the extent Respondents have any residual authority, they certainly have no power to supplant the will of the statewide electorate in favor of their own.”
The NM Political Report contributed to this report.