NM Supreme Court partially upholds MLG’s unconstitutional gun edict

A sharply divided New Mexico Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that far-left Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s 2023 emergency orders restricting gun possession and addressing drug abuse did not violate state law. However, the court did strike down a provision related to a juvenile justice initiative, deeming it an overreach of executive authority.

In a 3-2 decision, the majority of the court determined that Lujan Grisham’s orders fell within the broad emergency powers granted to governors under state law. This ruling has raised serious concerns regarding the extent of executive authority, with Justices Brianna Zamora and Michael Vigil dissenting. Zamora issued a strong warning about the potential for future abuse, stating, “While the governor’s desire to combat gun violence and drug abuse appears to be well-intended, there is nothing in the majority’s opinion that would restrict a future governor from taking actions that would be substantively more troubling.”

This ruling is significant not only because of its implications for executive power but also due to the makeup of the court itself— a majority of justices were appointed by Lujan Grisham. This raises questions about the objectivity of the decision and whether judicial independence has been compromised in favor of political loyalty.

Despite the court’s decision, the practical impact is limited, as the governor’s emergency orders have either expired or been blocked by federal courts. Nonetheless, the ruling sets a dangerous precedent, allowing future governors to invoke emergency powers in sweeping ways, potentially infringing on constitutional rights.

Lujan Grisham initially justified her emergency orders after the tragic killing of an 11-year-old boy in Albuquerque, declaring gun violence and drug abuse public health crises. She subsequently attempted to ban firearm possession in public spaces within Albuquerque and Bernalillo County and mandated wastewater testing in schools for fentanyl and other drugs. The gun restrictions were swiftly challenged and blocked by a Joe Biden-appointed federal judge, leading her to revise the order to only cover parks and playgrounds. That order was allowed to expire in October 2024 and was not renewed.

The governor’s actions prompted legal challenges from a broad coalition, including the New Mexico Republican Party, GOP lawmakers, the state Libertarian Party, and the National Rifle Association. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, state Republican Party Chairwoman Amy Barela warned of the dangerous precedent set by the decision, stating, “The dissenting justices’ warnings prove our point: without a check on this power, what’s next? Will a future Democratic governor declare an ‘emergency’ over climate change to seize property? Ban free speech to combat ‘misinformation’? The majority’s ruling says they can — and Democrats will.”

Lujan Grisham’s reliance on emergency powers has been a recurring theme of her administration, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the 2003 Public Health Emergency Response Act, which was originally enacted following the 2001 anthrax attacks, she repeatedly extended emergency declarations and issued sweeping public health mandates. Efforts by legislators to curb the governor’s authority have been unsuccessful, as she has vowed to veto any such measures.

The court’s ruling reinforces the unchecked expansion of executive power under the guise of public health emergencies, raising serious constitutional concerns. While Lujan Grisham’s orders may have technically adhered to state law, they undeniably tested the boundaries of individual rights and governmental overreach. The decision underscores the need for legislative reforms to ensure that emergency powers are not exploited to bypass constitutional protections and democratic processes.