The state Supreme Court issued a written opinion Friday on New Mexico’s authority to enforce public health orders amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The opinion provided detailed legal reasoning for an unanimous decision in August, in which justices ruled the state health secretary had legal authority to impose restrictions on indoor dining.

The court also ruled such restrictions were not “arbitrary and capricious,” as an attorney for the New Mexico Restaurant Association and several eateries had argued.

The ruling came after businesses filed a lawsuit in state District Court challenging Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s emergency health orders related to the pandemic, and the governor responded by petitioning the Supreme Court to resolve the matter.

The court concluded the Legislature empowered the governor and other state officials to enforce public health restrictions on businesses through the Public Health Emergency Response Act, which allows fines of $5,000 a day for violations.

“The spirit and intent of the Act suggests that the penalty provision is applicable to all violations of orders and other measures lawfully exercising the powers conveyed thereunder,” read the opinion, written by Justice Judith Nakamura.

The court also ruled that the Department of Health has authority to respond to a public health emergency.

“The Secretary was authorized … to issue emergency orders forbidding gatherings of people to ‘control and abate’ the transmission of COVID-19 in locales such as restaurants,” the opinion said.


Jens Gould covers politics for the Santa Fe New Mexican. He was a correspondent for Bloomberg News in Mexico City, a regular contributor for TIME in California, and produced the video series Bravery Tapes.

(5) comments


What is most difficult to understand is why people don't take a break, stay-at-home for a week rather than dragging this out to almost a year now. It's real a chair and it's time to be selfless

Maxwell Vertical

The Governor is selective in how she respects constitutional rights. She respects the right to assemble and protest, but not the right to freedom of movement across state lines.

Mike Johnson

Wow! Such a shocker. This biased, partisan, kangaroo court would say anything MLG does is fine. That is what political corruption is all about.

Stefanie Beninato

Yeah, you thought the obelisk vandals were outsiders too until you recognized the third person charged was a local tattoo artist--so much for your unchanging alt right POV

Mike Johnson

A guy's gotta have tats......

Welcome to the discussion.

Thank you for joining the conversation on Please familiarize yourself with the community guidelines. Avoid personal attacks: Lively, vigorous conversation is welcomed and encouraged, insults, name-calling and other personal attacks are not. No commercial peddling: Promotions of commercial goods and services are inappropriate to the purposes of this forum and can be removed. Respect copyrights: Post citations to sources appropriate to support your arguments, but refrain from posting entire copyrighted pieces. Be yourself: Accounts suspected of using fake identities can be removed from the forum.