Case: Torrez v. Board of County Commissioners for Lea County

This is a case about reproductive rights in New Mexico. This lawsuit was filed on January 23, 2023 in the New Mexico Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez sued two counties and two cities in the state that had recently passed local ordinances significantly limiting abortion rights. The AG alleged that these ordinances violated the state Constitution, both by infringing on individual liberties and exceeding local governmental authority. The AG sought a writ of mandamus that would void the ordinances and stop state courts from enforcing them. He also sought a stay that would stop the ordinances from becoming law until the case had been decided.

In the complaint, the AG argued that the state Supreme Court had original jurisdiction over the case because it concerned important and urgent constitutional matters. He noted that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Dobbs had not outlawed abortion in New Mexico because the state legislature had previously repealed the state's abortion ban. However, the defendants had used local ordinances to significantly limit abortion access.

The first ordinance, which was passed by the City of Hobbs in November 2022, required abortion clinics to have licenses and banned the shipment of items used in abortion procedures, or the aiding and abetting of such shipments. The second ordinance, passed by Lea County a month later, similarly banned shipment of items used in abortion procedures and included a $300 fine. The third ordinance, passed by the City of Clovis in January 2023, included both the licensing requirement and the shipment ban. The final ordinance, passed by Roosevelt County in the same month, included the licensing requirement and made it possible for people to sue violators of the ordinance to stop them from doing so and recover, at minimum, $100,000. The AG also noted that under two of the ordinances, the classification of "abortion clinic" was so expansive that a person taking abortion-inducing medicine at their own house could fall under the law.

The AG argued that these local restrictions violated the state Constitution. First, he contended that the ordinances would essentially stop abortion clinics from operating, and that doing so conflicted with several constitutional protections. The AG drew on a previous New Mexico Supreme Court decision, New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, about a state policy that had narrowed the definition of a medically necessary abortion and therefore limited the procedures that were covered by Medicaid. The Court invalidated the policy as contrary to the state Constitution's Equal Rights Amendment because it discriminated against women without justification. 975 P.2d 841. The AG asked the Court to invalidate these ordinances for the same reason.

The AG also argued that the restrictions conflicted with the privacy and Due Process rights in New Mexico's Constitution, noting that the state Constitution has stronger privacy protections than the federal Constitution. He also contended that the Inherent Rights Clause in the state Constitution should be understood to protect reproductive rights. The AG argued that the local governments had no compelling interest that would justify an infringement of these protections.

Finally, the AG alleged that the ordinances went beyond the constitutional authority of the cities and counties that had passed them. For example, he argued that the state government regulated medical licenses, so a local government lacked the authority to institute their own licensing requirement. Furthermore, Roosevelt County's ordinance, which let people sue clinics, conflicted with constitutional limits on a local government's ability to create civil causes of action.

As of February 2023, the case was ongoing.