The New Mexico Appeals Court dealt a major blow to environmental activists, ruling that the judiciary cannot dictate how oil and gas pollution is regulated in a state heavily dependent on energy production for its economic survival.
Key Takeaways
- New Mexico appeals court dismissed a landmark lawsuit that attempted to use a 1971 constitutional amendment to force stricter regulation of oil and gas pollution
- The court ruled that pollution control responsibilities rest with the Legislature, not the judiciary, respecting the separation of powers
- Environmental activists plan to appeal to the state Supreme Court, claiming the ruling renders the constitutional pollution control clause “meaningless”
- The decision protects New Mexico’s critical oil and gas industry, which provides significant funding for the state budget and public services
Court Upholds Energy Industry Against Activist Overreach
In a significant victory for New Mexico’s vital energy sector, the state Court of Appeals has dismissed a lawsuit that attempted to use the judiciary to impose stricter environmental regulations on oil and gas operations. The lawsuit, filed in 2023 by environmental activist groups, sought to weaponize a 1971 constitutional amendment requiring the state to control pollution. However, the court correctly recognized this as an attempt to bypass the legislative process, ruling that determining the adequacy of pollution controls falls outside the judiciary’s authority and squarely within the Legislature’s domain.
This ruling protects the economic engine that powers New Mexico’s economy and funds its essential services. The Permian Basin’s oil production provides a substantial portion of the state’s budget, supporting everything from education to healthcare. By recognizing the historical importance of resource development alongside environmental concerns, the court has maintained a crucial balance that Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s administration has consistently undermined with excessive regulations targeting energy production under the guise of environmental protection.
Constitutional Balance Preserved
The appeals court showed remarkable judicial restraint by refusing to usurp the authority of the Legislature in determining how to balance economic development with environmental protection. The panel emphasized that New Mexico’s history demonstrates that resource extraction and environmental protection can and must coexist, rejecting the false choice presented by environmental activists that would devastate the state’s economy and tax base while providing minimal environmental benefit.
“While plaintiffs correctly observe that, as the ‘Land of Enchantment,’ the state’s beauty is central to our identity, we cannot ignore the long history of permitting oil and gas extraction within our borders,” stated New Mexico Court of Appeals panel
The court further emphasized the need for balance rather than extremism in its approach: “If anything, the law, history, and tradition of our state demonstrates that resource extraction must be considered alongside, and must coexist with, pollution control legislation.” This sensible approach recognizes that environmental protection does not require destroying the livelihoods of thousands of New Mexicans who depend on the energy industry for their jobs and economic security.
Environmental Activists Plan Further Legal Challenges
Predictably, environmental activists are unwilling to accept the court’s reasonable decision. Gail Evans, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, criticized the ruling, claiming it “displays a fundamental misunderstanding of our constitution and constitutional rights.” This response typifies the activist approach that seeks to use the courts to achieve policy objectives they cannot win through the democratic process. Evans has announced plans to appeal to the state Supreme Court, continuing to push an agenda that would undermine New Mexico’s energy independence and economic stability.
“Fifty years ago, New Mexico voted to amend the constitution and to provide protections from industry pollution and the court has found today that the amendment — the pollution control clause — is essentially meaningless, and that has to be wrong,” said Gail Evans
Appeals Judge Katherine Wray issued a concurring opinion that further limited the scope of the pollution control clause, reinforcing that the judiciary should not substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature in matters of complex economic and environmental policy. This decision represents a crucial check on judicial activism and preserves the constitutional separation of powers that protects citizens from government overreach through unelected judges imposing policy preferences not supported by law.
