IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

DAWN AMDOR, STEPHANIE SEDILLO,

JEREE TOMASI, RETIRED LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS GARY
AINSWORTH, SHAWN BLAS, RUBEN
CHAVEZ, CRAIG MARTIN, and JOE POLISAR,
HOUSE MINORITY FLOOR LEADER T. RYAN
LANE and REPRESENTATIVES GAIL
ARMSTRONG, BRIAN BACA, JOHN BLOCK,
CATHRYNN BROWN, JACK CHATFIELD,
MARK DUNCAN, CANDY SPENCE EZZELL,
JASON HARPER, JOSHUA HERNANDEZ,
JENIFER JONES, STEPHANI LORD, ALAN
MARTINEZ, JIMMY MASON, TANYA MOYA,
ROD MONTOYA, GREG NIBERT, RANDALL
PETTIGREW, ANDREA REEB, WILLIAM
REHM, LARRY SCOTT, LUIS TERRAZAS, JIM
TOWNSEND, HARLAN VINCENT, and
MARTIN ZAMORA, SENATE MINORITY
FLOOR LEADER GREGORY BACA and
SENATORS CRAIG BRANDT, WILLIAM
BURT, CRYSTAL DIAMOND BRANTLEY,
DAVID GALLEGOS, RON GRIGGS, STUART
INGLE, MARK MOORES, STEVEN NEVILLE,
CLIFF PIRTLE, JOSHUA SANCHEZ, GREGG
SCHMEDES, WILLIAM SHARER, and PAT
WOODS, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF NEW
MEXICO, THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF
NEW MEXICO, and THE NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,

Petitioners,

vs. No. ___________________________

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, in her official

capacity as Governor of New Mexico, and
PATRICK ALLEN, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Department of Health,

Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________________________

VERIFIED PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT

AND REQUEST FOR STAY
_________________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument Is Requested

Carter B. Harrison IV Paul J. Kennedy
HARRISON & HART, LLC Jessica M. Hernandez
924 Park Avenue SW, Ste. E Elizabeth A. Harrison
Albuquerque, NM 87102 KENNEDY, HERNANDEZ & HARRISON, P.C.
Tel: (505) 295-3261 201 Twelfth Street NW
Fax: (505) 341-9340 Albuquerque, NM 87102
[email protected] Tel: (505) 842-8662

Greg Baca T. Ryan Lane

BACA LAW OFFICES T. RYAN LANE, P.C.
2214 Sun Ranch Village Loop 103 S. Main Avenue
Los Lunas, NM 87031 Aztec, NM 87410

Counsel for the Petitioners

Sophie Cooper
1595 Camino de la Tierra
Corrales, NM 87048
Tel: (505) 903-2228
[email protected]

Counsel for Petitioner

Libertarian Party of New Mexico
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities ii
Background 1
Jurisdiction & Circumstances Necessitating a Writ 3
The Parties 6
The Grounds for the Petition 8
I. “Gun Violence” and “Drug Abuse” are not “Public Health Emergencies”. 8
II. The Governor has violated the separation of powers. 15
III. The Orders cause a “Plain, Palpable Invasion of Rights”. 20
The Relief Sought 24
Certificate of Compliance 26
Certificate of Service 27
Exhibits (3)
Verifications

i
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Constitutional Provisions, Statutes & Rules

Federal
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, Pub. L. No. 108-
277 (2004) 7 n.2
New Mexico
N.M. Const. art. II, § 6 22
N.M. Const. art. II, § 24 18
N.M. Const. art. III, § 1 5 & 15
N.M. Const. art. VI, § 3 3
Department of Health Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 9-7-1 to -18 9
Riot Control Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 12-10-16 to -21 17 n.8
NMSA 1978, § 12-10-17 17 n.8
NMSA 1978, § 12-10-18 17 n.8
NMSA 1978, § 12-10-19 17 n.8
Public Health Emergency Response Act, NMSA 1978,
§§ 12-10A-1 to -19 (“PHERA”) 9
NMSA 1978, § 12-10A-2 23
NMSA 1978 § 12-10A-3 10
NMSA 1978, § 12-10A-5 11
Public Health Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 24-1-1 to -40 (“PHA”) 9
NMSA 1978, § 24-1-2 10 n.4
Concealed Handgun Carry Act, NMSA 1978, § 29-19-1 to
-15 16
NMSA 1978, § 29-19-4 16
Weapons & Explosives Article, NMSA 1978, § 30-7-1
to -16 16
NMSA 1978, § 1-7-7 7-8
NMSA 1978, § 9-2A-14.1 18
NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-4 16
NMSA 1978, § 12-9B-1 1&5

ii
 NMSA 1978, § 29-19-6 16
NMSA 1978, § 30-7-2 17
NMSA 1978, § 30-31-23 19
NMSA 1978, § 30-31-27 19
NMSA 1978, § 30-31-40 19
NMSA 1978, § 31-26-4 18
Rule 12-504 NMRA 5

New Mexico Appellate Cases

Supreme Court
State ex rel. Riddle v. Oliver, 2021-NMSC-018, 487 P.3d
815 3&4
Grisham v. Reeb, 2021-NMSC-006, 480 P.3d 852 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 15
Grisham v. Romero, 2021-NMSC-009, 483 P.3d 545 5, 9, 10, 12, 15 & 20
State v. Wilson, 2021-NMSC-022, 489 P.3d 925 13-14
State ex rel. Sugg v. Oliver, 2020-NMSC-002, 456 P.3d
1065 4
Unite New Mexico v. Oliver, 2019-NMSC-009, 438 P.3d
343 15
Griego v. Oliver, 2014-NMSC-003, 316 P.3d 865 22
State ex rel. Richardson v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Nominating
Comm’n, 2007-NMSC-023, 141 N.M. 657, 160 P.3d 566 3
Cobb v. State Canvassing Bd., 2006-NMSC-034, 140 N.M.
77, 140 P.3d 498 3 & 19
State v. Garcia, 2005-NMSC-017, 138 N.M. 1, 116 P.3d 72 23
State ex rel. N.M. Voices for Children, Inc. v. Denko, 2004-
NMSC-011, 135 N.M. 439, 90 P.3d 458 16-17 & 22
State v. Lynch, 2003-NMSC-020, 134 N.M. 139, 74 P.3d
73 23-24
Baca v. N.M. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2002-NMSC-017, 132
N.M. 282, 47 P.3d 441 23

iii
 In re Adjustments to Franchise Fees Req’d by Elec. Util.
Indus. Restructuring Act of 1999, 2000-NMSC-035, 129
N.M. 787, 14 P.3d 525 4
State ex rel. Sandel v. N.M. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 1999-
NMSC-019, 127 N.M. 272, 980 P.2d 55 4
State ex rel. Taylor v. Johnson, 1998-NMSC-015, 125
N.M. 343, 961 P.2d 768 20
State ex rel. Clark v. Johnson, 1995-NMSC-048, 120 N.M.
562, 904 P.2d 11 5
State ex rel. Schwartz v. Johnson, 1995-NMSC-080, 120
N.M. 820, 907 P.2d 1001 19
Montoya v. O’Toole, 1980-NMSC-045, 94 N.M. 303, 610
P.2d 190 18
State ex rel. Bird v. Apodaca, 1977-NMSC-110, 91 N.M.
279, 573 P.2d 213 5
City of Santa Fe v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 1964-NMSC-
016, 73 N.M. 410, 389 P.2d 13 15
State ex rel. Holmes v. State Bd. of Fin., 1961-NMSC-172,
69 N.M. 430, 367 P.2d 925 20
Lopez v. Chewiwie, 1947-NMSC-061, 51 N.M. 421, 186
P.2d 512 17
Court of Appeals
Martinez v. N.M. Tax. & Rev. Dep’t, Motor Vehicle Div.,
2023-NMCA-049 (publication in P.3d forthcoming) 20
Kreutzer v. Aldo Leopold High Sch., 2018-NMCA-005,
409 P.3d 930 13
Young v. Wilham, 2017-NMCA-087, 406 P.3d 988 22
State v. Candelaria, 2011-NMCA-001, 149 N.M. 125, 245
P.3d 69 23
State v. Gage R., 2010-NMCA-104, 149 N.M. 14, 243 P.3d
453 21
City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 1971-NMCA-074, 82 N.M.
626, 485 P.2d 737 22

iv
Other Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct.
2111 (2022) 12 & 21
Biden v. Missouri, 142 S. Ct. 647 (2022) 12
Republican Nat’l Cmte. v. Democratic Nat’l Cmte., 140
S. Ct. 1205 (2020) 12
D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) 12 & 21
German All. Ins. Co. v. Hale, 219 U.S. 307 (1911) 23
Welch v. Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 (1909) 14
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) 10-11 n.5 & 20
Federal Circuit Courts
In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd., 16 F.4th 954 (1st Cir.
2021) 3
Federal District Courts
Nat’l Assoc. for Gun Rights, et al. v. Lujan Grisham, et al.,
2023 WL 5951940 (D.N.M. Sept. 13, 2023) 2 n.1
Legacy Church, Inc. v. Kunkel, 472 F. Supp. 3d 926
(D.N.M. July 13, 2020) 10

Miscellaneous
New Mexico Gov. Lujan Grisham Holds News Conference
on Gun Violence, KOB 4 (Sept. 8, 2023) 13 n.7
Amy Lunday, Michelle Lujan Grisham Champions Power
of Policy During Johns Hopkins Talk, Johns Hopkins Univ.
(May, 9, 2023) 12-13
N.M. Dep’t of Health, New Mexico Child Fatality Review
2022 Report (Jan. 31, 2023) 11 n.6
Off. of Med. Investigator, Annual Report (2021) 11 n.6
Leg. Ed. Study Cmte., Bill Analysis of House Bill 874
(2009) 18

v
 BACKGROUND

This case involves two executive orders issued by the Governor under the

Emergency Powers Code, NMSA 1978, § 12-9B-1, and the Public Health

Emergency Order issued on September 8, 2023. See N.M. Dep’t of Health, Public

Health Emergency Order at 1, 3 (issued Sept. 8, 2023) (Exhibit 1 to this Petition)

(“PHEO”). One of the executive orders declares a public health emergency “due to

gun violence,” see State of N.M., Executive Ord. 2023-130 (issued Sept. 8, 2023)

(Exhibit 2 to this Petition) (“EO 130”); the other declares a public health emergency

“due to drug abuse,” see State of N.M., Executive Ord. 2023-132 (issued Sept. 8,

2023) (Exhibit 3 to this Petition) (“EO 132”). The resultant PHEO imposes a

stringent ban on carrying firearms, currently only applicable in Bernalillo County;

requires monthly inspections of licensed firearms dealers; requires the compilation

and issuance of “a comprehensive report on gunshot victims,” including their

demographic data, their “healthcare outcomes,” and other information; mandates

“wastewater testing for illicit substances, such as fentanyl, at all public schools”;

“immediately suspend[s] the Juvenile Detention Alternative[s] Initiative”;

dispatches officers from the Department of Public Safety to “work with” Bernalillo

County law-enforcement agencies; and requires Department of Public Safety

officers to “assist in [the] apprehension of individuals with outstanding arrest

1
warrants.” PHEO at 1-2. It states that “civil administrative penalties” may be

imposed on violators. See id. at 2.

Both executive orders state that “emergency financial resources in an amount

not to exceed seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000.00)” shall be made

available “for the purpose of complying with [each] Order.” EO 130; EO 132. The

two orders are to remain in effect until October 6, 2023, but both claim that “the

foregoing situation constitutes a statewide public health emergency of unknown

duration,” id.; the PHEO thus expressly contemplates “subsequent renewals of those

public health emergency declarations,” into the indefinite future, see PHEO at 3.

The Court should strike down not just the PHEO, which as of yesterday has

been temporarily and partially enjoined by a federal court 1 for being patently

violative of the federal Second Amendment, but should issue a writ vacating or

commanding withdrawal of the executive orders, and clarify for the Governor, the

public, and posterity that gun violence and drug abuse are not “public health

emergencies” allowing the arrogation of plenary emergency powers, and that the

Legislature’s carefully-considered, comprehensive, and uniform statewide scheme

for regulating the carrying of firearms cannot be blown up in an instant by executive

1
The temporary restraining order issued in the District of New Mexico enjoins the
Governor from enforcing two of the eight directives in the PHEO (both related to firearms), until
October 3, 2023. See Nat’l Assoc. for Gun Rights, et al. v. Lujan Grisham, et al., 1:23-CV-00771-
DHU-LF, 2023 WL 5951940, at *4-5 (D.N.M. Sept. 13, 2023).

2
fiat. The Court should hear this Petition and decide these issues on the merits

regardless of whether the current PHEO is put back into full effect, is voluntarily

withdrawn, or is superseded by another order, as the deeper legal issues involved are

of paramount importance and are “capable of repetition yet evading review.” Cobb

v. State Canvassing Bd., 2006-NMSC-034, ¶¶ 29-32, 140 N.M. 77, 140 P.3d 498;

see also In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd., 16 F.4th 954, 961-62 (1st Cir. 2021)

(describing “the ‘voluntary cessation’ exception to mootness, which provides that a

defendant’s voluntary cessation of putatively illegal or unconstitutional conduct will

not moot a case, unless the defendant ‘meets “the formidable burden of showing that

it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be

expected to recur”’” (citations omitted)).

JURISDICTION AND CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSITATING

EXTRAORDINARY WRIT

“Article VI, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution gives this Court

original jurisdiction in mandamus against all state officers and the power to issue

writs of mandamus and all other writs necessary or proper for the complete exercise

of its jurisdiction.” State ex rel. Riddle v. Oliver, 2021-NMSC-018, ¶ 21, 487 P.3d

815 (alterations, quotations omitted). Mandamus is “the proper remedy to compel

the performance of an official act by a public officer,” State ex rel. Richardson v.

Fifth Judicial Dist. Nominating Comm’n, 2007-NMSC-023, ¶ 9, 141 N.M. 657, 160

3
P.3d 566 (quotations omitted), but “the writ may also be used in appropriate

circumstances in a prohibitory manner to prohibit unconstitutional official action,”

State ex rel. Sugg v. Oliver, 2020-NMSC-002, ¶ 7, 456 P.3d 1065 (quotations

omitted). The Court has described these circumstances in State ex rel. Sandel v. N.M.

Pub. Util. Comm’n, 1999-NMSC-019, 127 N.M. 272, 980 P.2d 55.

Under the Sandel test, mandamus “will lie when the petitioner presents
a purely legal issue concerning the non-discretionary duty of a
government official that (1) implicates fundamental constitutional
questions of great public importance, (2) can be answered on the basis
of virtually undisputed facts, and (3) calls for an expeditious resolution
that cannot be obtained through other channels such as a direct appeal.”

Riddle, 2021-NMSC-018, ¶ 24 (quoting Sandel, 1999-NMSC-019, ¶ 11).

First, the Governor’s exercise of emergency powers with respect to “gun

violence” and “drug abuse” itself “implicates fundamental constitutional questions

of great public importance.” Id. But these orders also involve questions of

separation of powers and constitutional rights, which this Court has found sufficient

to warrant the exercise of original jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Adjustments to

Franchise Fees, 2000-NMSC-035, ¶ 7, 129 N.M. 787, 14 P.3d 525 (“We deemed

this issue to be a fundamental constitutional question of great public importance

because it implicated the doctrine of separation of powers.” (citing Sandel, 1999-

NMSC-019, ¶¶ 11, 30)).

Second, these issues “can be answered on the basis of virtually undisputed

facts,” Riddle, 2021-NMSC-018, ¶ 24; they are, in broad strokes: (1) whether “gun

4
violence” and “drug abuse” constitute “public health emergencies” as defined in the

Emergency Powers Code, see NMSA 1978, § 12-9B-1; (2) whether the Governor

“infringe[d] on the legislative branch,” thereby violating the separation of powers,

by implementing “substantive policy changes in an area of law reserved to the

Legislature,” Grisham v. Romero, 2021-NMSC-009, ¶ 34, 483 P.3d 545; see also

N.M. Const. art. III, § 1; and (3) whether the orders violate the civil rights and

liberties safeguarded by the state and federal constitutions. All require “a legal and

not a factual determination,” so the Court should “not hesitate to accept the

responsibility of rendering a just and speedy disposition.” State ex rel. Bird v.

Apodaca, 1977-NMSC-110, ¶ 5, 91 N.M. 279, 573 P.2d 213.

Finally, given the nature of the rights at issue and the time sensitivity of the

requested relief—which includes a stay of the PHEO’s requirements, including those

not addressed by the federal court—“an early resolution of this dispute is desirable.”

State ex rel. Clark v. Johnson, 1995-NMSC-048, ¶ 17, 120 N.M. 562, 904 P.2d 11.

“[T]he possible inadequacy of other remedies and the necessity of an early decision

on this question of great public importance” make this a case in which it is

“necessary [and] proper to seek the writ in the supreme court.” Id. ¶ 16; see also

Rule 12-504(B)(1)(b) NMRA.

5
 THE PARTIES

The Petitioners are a broad coalition of ordinary Bernalillo County residents

who regularly exercise their constitutional and statutory right to carry a firearm,

retired law enforcement officers, state legislators, two major political parties, and a

prominent national advocacy group for the right to bear arms.

Petitioner Dawn Amdor is a Bernalillo County resident and former President

of the Del Norte Gun Club; she is a licensed firearms instructor. Petitioner Stephanie

Sedillo is a Bernalillo County resident and NRA firearms instructor. Petitioner Jeree

Tomasi is a concealed-carry license holder and a resident of Bernalillo County.

These three Petitioners regularly exercise their right to bear arms in ways that would

now violate the PHEO.

Petitioner Joe Polisar is a Bernalillo County resident and former Chief of

Police of the Albuquerque Police Department. Petitioner Gary Ainsworth is a

Bernalillo County resident and retired Senior Special Agent with the United States

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”). Petitioner Ruben

Chavez is a retired law enforcement officer residing in Bernalillo County; he served

with the Las Cruces Police Department from 1984-1988, and was an ATF agent from

1988 to 2014. Petitioner Shawn Blas is a resident of Bernalillo County, a former law

enforcement officer, and an owner of Integrity Firearms, LLC, a firearms dealer

located in Bernalillo County. As an owner and operator of Integrity Firearms,

6
Mr. Blas is also affected by the portions of the PHEO regarding firearms dealers.

Petitioner Craig Martin is a retired law enforcement officer and has also been

certified as a firearms instructor since 2004. While Mr. Martin is a resident of San

Miguel County, he regularly travels to Bernalillo County for his work. Petitioners

Polisar, Ainsworth, Chavez, and Martin are all certified to carry a firearm, whether

openly or concealed, under state and federal law.2 Mr. Blas has previously been

licensed to carry a concealed firearm in New Mexico and is in the process of

renewing that license.

All Republican Members of the Legislature, including the minority floor

leaders of the House and Senate (Representative T. Ryan Lane and Senator Greg

Baca) and the complete rank and file of both chambers, and including those

Members representing Bernalillo County (Senators Mark Moores and Gregg

Schmedes and Representatives Bill Rehm and Stephani Lord), are Petitioners. As

state legislators, they have a special interest both in protecting the individual rights

of their constituents and in the separation-of-powers issues raised in this Petition.

The Republican and Libertarian Parties of New Mexico are two of the three

existing “major parties” under New Mexico law, and are Petitioners here. NMSA

2
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, Pub. L. No. 108-277 (2004), allows qualified
retired law enforcement officers to concealed carry in any jurisdiction in the United States. Their
omission from the (two-item) list of persons excluded from the PHEO’s gun ban is clearly
preempted by federal law.

7
1978, § 1-7-7(A). These parties share a philosophical aversion to undue restrictions

on individual liberties and have a strong interest in protecting the civil rights of their

members and of the public at large, as well as in protecting the legislative process

from executive interference and overreach. National Rifle Association of America

is a 501(c) non-profit and Second Amendment and firearm-rights advocacy

organization with over four-million members nationwide, and is likewise a

Petitioner.

Respondent Michelle Lujan Grisham is the Governor of New Mexico, and she

issued the two Executive Orders at issue here. Respondent Patrick Allen is the

Secretary of the Department of Health, and he issued the PHEO.

THE GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION

I. “Gun Violence” and “Drug Abuse” are not “Public Health Emergencies”.

Two executive orders are at issue here: one declares “gun violence” a public

health emergency, and the other does the same with “drug abuse.” See EO 130

(declaring a public health emergency “due to gun violence”); EO 132 (declaring a

public health emergency “due to drug abuse”). Arising from these executive orders

is the “Public Health Emergency Order Imposing Temporary Firearm Restrictions,

Drug Monitoring and Other Public Safety Measures,” signed by Department of

Health Secretary Patrick Allen on the same day. See PHEO at 1, 3. With few

exceptions, the PHEO bans possession of a firearm, “either openly or concealed,

8
within cities or counties” that have crime rates and numbers of “firearm-related

emergency department visits” at certain levels. Id. at 1-2. It also requires the

collection of gunshot victims’ demographic and medical information, see id. at 2, the

testing of public schools’ sewage “for illicit substances,” id., and the suspension of

“the Juvenile Detention Alternative[s] Initiative,” id. (a program intended to “reduce

juvenile out-of-home placement, especially for youth of color,” Bernalillo County

Juvenile Justice Collaborative, 2021 Deep End Performance Measures; see also

Bernalillo County, JDAI Pamphlet 2023 3).

According to the PHEO, the legal authority for these measures stems from the

Public Health Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 24-1-1 to -40 (“PHA”), the Public Health

Emergency Response Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 12-10A-1 to -19 (“PHERA”),

Department of Health Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 9-7-1 to -18 (“DOH Act”), and the

“inherent constitutional police powers of the New Mexico state government.” These

are exactly the same authorities upon which the Governor relied to issue orders

related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Cf. Romero, 2021-NMSC-009, ¶ 4; Grisham v.

Reeb, 2021-NMSC-006, ¶ 3, 480 P.3d 852. They require that the problems of “gun

3
Accessible at these links, respectively: https://www.bernco.gov/health-and-public-
safety/wp-content/uploads/sites/60/2021/12/2021-Deep-end-Performance-Measures-Power-
Point-updatedfinal5-12-2021-today.cs.edits.11.19.21-002.pdf; https://www.bernco.gov/health-
and-public-safety/wp-content/uploads/sites/60/2023/09/JDAI-Pamphlet-2023.pdf (last visited
Sept. 13, 2023).

9
violence” and “drug abuse” identified in the PHEO be “public health emergencies”

within the meaning of PHERA. See PHEO at 1.

As defined in PHERA, a “‘public health emergency’ means the occurrence or

imminent threat of exposure to an extremely dangerous condition or a highly

infectious or toxic agent, including a threatening communicable disease, that poses

an imminent threat of substantial harm to the population of New Mexico or any

portion thereof[.]” NMSA 1978, § 12-10A-3(G). 4 In applying this definition to the

COVID-19 pandemic, this Court took judicial notice of the fact that COVID-19 is

“a ‘highly contagious and potentially fatal’ disease,” which had resulted in millions

of cases and hundreds of thousands of deaths across the United States. See Romero,

2021-NMSC-009, ¶¶ 2-7; Reeb, 2021-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 22-23; see also Legacy

Church, Inc. v. Kunkel, 472 F. Supp. 3d 926, 1066 (D.N.M. July 13, 2020), aff’d sub

nom. Legacy Church, Inc. v. Collins, 853 F. App’x 316 (10th Cir. 2021) (noting the

“scientific consensus regarding the coronavirus” that it “is highly contagious and

potentially fatal”). 5 The Court described PHERA as “tailoring the DOH’s existing

4
Although the PHEO and executive orders describe this as a “public health emergency”
under PHERA and not a “condition of public health importance” under the PHA, the Petitioners
note that the latter “means an infection, a disease, a syndrome, a symptom, an injury or other threat
that is identifiable on an individual or community level and can reasonably be expected to lead to
adverse health effects in the community,” NMSA 1978, § 24-1-2(A)—which definition is arguably
even more explicitly aimed at medical conditions and contagions like COVID-19 than is the
“dangerous condition” language in PHERA.
5
The Court also cited Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 30-31 (1905), in which the
United States Supreme Court upheld vaccination requirements intended “to meet and suppress the
evils of a smallpox epidemic that imperiled an entire population.” As in Reeb and Romero, the

10
authority under the PHA to address the spread of an infectious disease through

vaccination, isolation and quarantine of persons,” in addition to providing “due

process protections for the public.” Reeb, 2021-NMSC-006, ¶ 26, 480 P.3d 852.

The construction of “public health emergency” proposed by these executive

orders—i.e., that the same definition applicable to COVID-19 also extends to “gun

violence” and “drug abuse”—has no comparable “scientific consensus,” and none is

proposed in either order. See NMSA 1978, § 12-10A-5(B)(1), (3) (requiring an

executive order pursuant to PHERA to specify “the nature of the public health

emergency” and “the conditions that caused the public health emergency”). The

stated bases for EO 130 are five-year-old statistics about “the rate of gun deaths”

from 2009 to 2018, and five instances of gun violence in 2023.6 The basis for EO

132 is a “trend of drug abuse,” including an “increase in drug-related deaths,” as

well as the “social and economic burdens of drug addiction.” Neither involves

“address[ing] the spread of an infectious disease through vaccination, isolation and

Jacobson Court looked to infection and mortality rates and the history of containment efforts, see
id. at 33 n.1, against the backdrop that “[s]mallpox is known of all to be a dangerous and contagious
disease,” id. at 34 (quotations omitted).
6
EO 130 also indicates that “guns are the leading cause of death among children and teens
in New Mexico,” but that assertion does not appear in the most recent Child Fatality Review. See
N.M. Dep’t of Health, New Mexico Child Fatality Review 2022 Report (Jan. 31, 2023),
https://www.nmhealth.org/publication/view/report/8272 (last visited Sept. 13, 2023). According
to the most recent report by the Office of the Medical Investigator, “[t]he most common manner
of death among children was natural, contributing 21.95% of the total.” Off. of Med. Investigator,
Annual Report (2021), https://hsc.unm.edu/omi/_docs/pdfs/ar2021.pdf (last visited Sept. 13,
2023); see also Off. of Med. Investigator, Annual Reports Page, https://hsc.unm.edu/omi/reports
(last visited Sept. 13, 2023) (showing 2021’s as the most recent available report).

11
quarantine of persons.” Reeb, 2021-NMSC-006, ¶ 26. Even assuming arguendo

that the dual “public health emergencies” identified in the executive orders are

“generally known” or can be “accurately and readily determined from sources whose

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned,” Rule 11-201(B) NMRA, they are easily

distinguishable from the growing infection and mortality figures of the “highly

contagious and potentially fatal” COVID-19 pandemic that triggered the emergency

powers under PHERA, cf. Romero, 2021-NMSC-009, ¶¶ 2-7; Reeb, 2021-NMSC-

006, ¶¶ 22-23. It is perhaps illustrative of the difference that the United States

Supreme Court has described “firearm violence” as “a perceived societal problem,”

N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2131 (2022) (citing

D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 634 (2008)), where it has described COVID-19 as “a

highly contagious, dangerous, and . . . deadly disease,” Biden v. Missouri, 142 S. Ct.

647, 652 (2022), and a “public health crisis,” Republican Nat’l Cmte. v. Democratic

Nat’l Cmte., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1208 (2020) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).

Lest the Petitioners come across as fearmongering or histrionic for pointing

out the dangers inherent in allowing the Governor to predicate the arrogation of

emergency powers on such an open-ended conception of “public health,” they will

simply recite the Governor’s own words, which adequately convey the consequences

of this extreme expansion of executive discretion:

Everything is a public-health issue. Gun violence is a public-health

issue. Poverty is a public-health issue. Environmental consequences

12
 from energy is a public-health issue. All of these disenfranchised
populations, all of the equity barriers, are all public-health issues.

Embedded Video at 10:39-56, Amy Lunday, Michelle Lujan Grisham Champions

Power of Policy During Johns Hopkins Talk, Johns Hopkins Univ. (May, 9, 2023),

https://hub.jhu.edu/2023/05/09/lujan-grisham-health-policy-forum/ (last visited

Sept. 13, 2023). 7 This Court has stated, in the specific context of interpreting

PHERA, that “[i]n construing the language of a statute, our goal and guiding

principle is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” Reeb, 2021-NMSC-006,

¶ 12, 480 P.3d 852. Even “judicial directives to read [statutory] provisions broadly

cannot be understood to authorize or require an interpretation that exceeds the

boundaries of legislative intent.” Kreutzer v. Aldo Leopold High Sch., 2018-NMCA-

005, ¶ 51, 409 P.3d 930. The principles of statutory construction cannot support

reading “public health emergency” to include “[e]verything.”

To the extent these orders rely not on the above statutory authority but solely

on the “constitutional police powers of the New Mexico state government,” PHEO

at 1, “judicial inquiry into whether an exercise of the police power to protect the

7
At a press conference announcing the PHEO, in answering the question “isn’t it
unconstitutional to say you cannot exercise your carry license,” the Governor recently responded:
“With one exception, and that is if there’s an emergency, and I’ve declared an emergency for a
temporary amount of time, I can invoke additional powers. No constitutional right, in my view,
including my oath, is intended to be absolute.” New Mexico Gov. Lujan Grisham Holds News
Conference on Gun Violence at 31:51-32:19, KOB 4 (Sept. 8, 2023),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9oLOubipXc (last visited Sept. 13, 2023).

13
public health has no real or substantial relation to its stated objects is never

foreclosed,” State v. Wilson, 2021-NMSC-022, ¶ 42, 489 P.3d 925 (alterations,

quotations omitted). Such orders “must have some fair tendency to accomplish, or

aid in the accomplishment of,” a permissible purpose. Welch v. Swasey, 214 U.S.

91, 105 (1909). Here, the executive orders and the PHEO fail to explain how a

sweeping ban on lawful gun possession reasonably relates to reducing “gun

violence”—nor how testing public-school sewage or suspending alternatives to

locked detention for children relates either to reducing gun violence or drug abuse.

EO 132’s only statement on children is that they “are particularly vulnerable to the

negative impacts of drug abuse, as evidenced by the rising number of cases involving

parental substance abuse and its subsequent effect on child welfare” (emphasis

added), which parental conduct is not addressed by the measures proposed.

“Regulation under the police power that does not bear a reasonable relationship to

the object for which it was enacted will be deemed invalid.” Wilson, 2021-NMSC-

022, ¶ 35 (alterations, quotations omitted); see also Welch, 214 U.S. at 105 (“If the

means employed, pursuant to the statute, have no real, substantial relation to a public

object which government can accomplish, if the statutes are arbitrary and

unreasonable, and beyond the necessities of the case, the courts will declare their

invalidity.”). Unlike during the COVID-19 pandemic, “a reasonably intelligent

person desirous of being informed” would not be on notice that the Governor could

14
use PHERA to address an issue like gun possession and immediately impose civil

penalties of up to $5,000 for conduct that had been protected as a fundamental right

hours before. Cf. Reeb, 2021-NMSC-006, ¶ 40. The Court should find these orders

invalid on their faces.

II. The Governor has violated the separation of powers.

“As a threshold matter, the New Mexico Legislature possesses the police

power, the broadest power possessed by governments, to protect public health and

welfare.” Reeb, 2021-NMSC-006, ¶ 14, 480 P.3d 852 (emphasis added, quotations

omitted). These powers may only “be delegated or enforced consistent with other

constitutional requirements.” Id.; see also N.M. Const. art. III, § 1. The Legislature

therefore could not “vest unbridled or arbitrary power” in the Executive, even if it

wished to do so. City of Santa Fe v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 1964-NMSC-016, ¶ 19,

73 N.M. 410, 389 P.2d 13; see also Unite New Mexico v. Oliver, 2019-NMSC-009,

¶ 8, 438 P.3d 343 (“Legislative power cannot be delegated, and the Legislature

cannot confer upon any person, officer, or tribunal the right to determine what the

law shall be. This is a function which the Legislature alone is authorized under the

Constitution to exercise.” (alteration, quotations omitted)). As in Romero, then,

“[t]he operative question is whether the [PHEO] disrupts the proper balance between

the executive and legislative branches and infringes on the legislative branch by, for

15
instance, imposing through executive order substantive policy changes in an area of

law reserved to the Legislature.” 2021-NMSC-009, ¶ 34.

These areas of the law have indeed been “reserved to the Legislature,” and

already have extensive statutory schemes implemented to address the issues of both

“gun violence” and “drug abuse.” Firearms, for example, have prohibitions on their

unlawful use set forth in the Criminal Code, see NMSA 1978, § 30-7-1 to -16; but

the Legislature also created affirmative safeguards for individuals’ rights to carry

firearms, including when concealed, see, e.g., NMSA 1978, § 29-19-4(A). Under

the Concealed Handgun Carry Act, NMSA 1978, § 29-19-1 to -15, the Department

of Public Safety “shall issue a concealed handgun license to an applicant who” meets

ten specified criteria. NMSA 1978, § 29-19-4(A) (emphasis added); id. § 12-2A-

4(A) (“‘Shall’ and ‘must’ express a duty, obligation, requirement or condition

precedent.”). Provisions for suspension or revocation of such a license are also laid

out in the Act; these hinge on violative or disqualifying conduct by the individual.

See NMSA 1978, § 29-19-6(I). They are not general rules of prohibition based on

geography or crime rates. Cf. PHEO at 1.

New Mexico has dedicated over a century to refining its firearm regulations.

See State ex rel. N.M. Voices for Children, Inc. v. Denko, 2004-NMSC-011, ¶ 10, 135

N.M. 439, 90 P.3d 458 (summarizing this history back to the territorial period, and

noting that “the territorial law of New Mexico had for many years . . . allow[ed]

16
concealed weapons to be carried outside of settlements, at one’s residence, in the

lawful defense of person or property, for protection while traveling, and by law

enforcement officers.”). Now, however, the PHEO effectively rewrites NMSA 1978,

§ 30-7-2 and removes some of its most established protections—e.g., a New Mexico

citizen’s ability to carry a lawful firearm for protection while traveling. Compare

NMSA 1978, § 30-7-2(A)(2) (permitting the carrying of a loaded firearm in a car

“for lawful protection of the person’s or another’s person or property”), and Lopez

v. Chewiwie, 1947-NMSC-061, ¶ 6, 51 N.M. 421, 186 P.2d 512 (describing the then-

applicable statute: “Section 41-1708, 1941 N.M.S.A., allows travelers to carry arms

for their protection.”), with PHEO at 2 (allowing a person to carry a firearm while

traveling only if moving between the listed locations and only “provided that the

firearm is in a locked container or locked with a firearm safety device that renders

the firearm inoperable”). These decisions must be the Legislature’s to make, not the

Governor’s. 8

8
It should be noted that the Legislature in fact did grant the Governor some authority to
“prohibit . . . the possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person in any place other
than his place of residence or business, except for peace officers,” NMSA 1978, § 12-10-18(A)(5),
but it expressly predicated this authority on “the existence of a state of emergency” under the Riot
Control Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 12-10-16 to -21. As a procedural matter, that Act requires that the
mayor, sheriff, or a majority of the governing body of the local municipality or county in question
request that the Governor proclaim the emergency, and as a substantive matter, such a
proclamation may be made only upon a “finding that a public disorder, disaster or emergency
which affects life or property exists.” NMSA 1978, § 12-10-17. Finally, “[a]ny state of emergency
proclaimed under the Riot Control Act, along with any restrictions imposed for control of that
emergency, terminates automatically at noon on the third day after it becomes effective unless
sooner terminated by proclamation of the governor.” Id. § 12-10-19.

17
 The same is true of the other legislative schemes that the PHEO contradicts.

The Legislature created the “juvenile continuum grant fund” for the purpose of

funding “temporary, nonsecure alternatives to detention for juveniles arrested or

referred to juvenile probation and parole,” NMSA 1978, § 9-2A-14.1—which

alternatives the Governor has now “suspend[ed],” PHEO at 2. Victims (including

victims of “negligent use of a deadly weapon,” N.M. Const. art. II, § 24) have a

statutory right to privacy under the Victims of Crime Act, to which the PHEO makes

no reference. Cf. NMSA 1978, § 31-26-4(A). The PHEO includes drug testing of

“wastewater” in public schools, although the Legislature rejected a proposed bill

regarding drug testing in public schools in 2009, after the Legislative Education

Study Committee reported: “The federal constitutional right to privacy is implicated

by any policy calling for the drug testing of students.” Leg. Ed. Study Cmte., Bill

Analysis (H.B. 874).9 Controlled substances are heavily regulated under state law—

including a delegation of specific, narrow authority “to allow the Board of Pharmacy

to schedule drugs,” which this Court approved as sufficiently “strict” in Montoya v.

O’Toole, 1980-NMSC-045, ¶¶ 4-5, 94 N.M. 303, 610 P.2d 190—but the PHEO’s

9
Accessible at www.nmlegis.gov/sessions/09%20Regular/LESCAnalysis/HB0874.pdf
(last visited Sept. 13, 2023). The PHEO is not clear whether the method by which the DOH intends
to test sewage would allow for identification of specific students, or just broadly identify that
“illicit substances, such as fentanyl” may have been used by someone in or near a building—and,
if the latter, what reasonable benefit such results would have in addressing the alleged “public
health emergency,” particularly given that fentanyl can be validly prescribed.

18
proposed “drug monitoring” does not address the complexities or protections of the

Controlled Substances Act, like its confidentiality provisions or its bar on certain

prosecutions, see NMSA 1978, § 30-31-40; NMSA 1978, § 30-31-27. And if EO

132 intends to extend the Governor’s authority to “prescription opioids” as well as

illegal drugs (as it appears to do), any enforcement would run afoul of both this

statutory scheme and the rights of New Mexicans to receive adequate medical care—

including pain management under the care of a doctor. See, e.g., NMSA 1978, § 30-

31-23(A). There is, in short, no indication whatsoever that the Governor’s orders

are “in compliance with the legislative will.” Cobb, 2006-NMSC-034, ¶ 41.

“[T]he constitutionality of a delegation is determined on the basis of the scope

of the power delegated and the specificity of the standards to govern its exercise.

When the scope increases to immense proportions the standards must be

correspondingly more precise.” State ex rel. Schwartz v. Johnson, 1995-NMSC-080,

¶ 16, 120 N.M. 820, 907 P.2d 1001 (alterations, quotations omitted). That is, even

if the Legislature did intend to delegate to the Governor the power to resolve all

serious social issues as “public health emergencies”—and the power to immediately

and unilaterally acquire “emergency financial resources” of $1.5 million to do so,

see EO 130 at 2; EO 132 at 2—it would violate the constitution. Cf. id. at ¶ 14 (“The

legislature must exercise its ‘exclusive power of deciding how, when, and for what

purpose the public funds shall be applied in carrying on the government.’”

19
(emphasis added) (quoting State ex rel. Holmes v. State Bd. of Fin., 1961-NMSC-

172, ¶ 33, 69 N.M. 430, 367 P.2d 925)). But the circumstances here are instead as

the Court described in State ex rel. Taylor v. Johnson: an “infringement upon

legislative power [occurs] where the executive does not execute existing New

Mexico statutory or case law and rather attempts to create new law.” 1998-NMSC-

015, ¶ 24, 125 N.M. 343, 961 P.2d 768 (alterations, quotations omitted).

Unlike the COVID-19 pandemic, which was “an unprecedented public health

crisis of an extraordinary magnitude,” Martinez v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t,

Motor Vehicle Div., 2023-NMCA-049, ¶ 35 (publication in P.3d forthcoming), the

public’s interest in regulating firearms and drug use is of long standing. Our

Legislature—like virtually all other states’—has dedicated years of effort to

adopting and adapting statutory schemes that will balance individual rights with

public safety in these areas. By overriding these complex efforts with a three-page

PHEO, the Governor has imposed “substantive policy changes” that conflict with

those chosen by the Legislature and amount to a usurpation of legislative powers in

violation of Article III, § 1. See Romero, 2021-NMSC-009, ¶ 34.

III. The Orders cause a “Plain, Palpable Invasion of Rights.”

A “state action for the protection of public health”—whatever its legitimacy

and reasonable relation to the health concern—cannot stand if it amounts to “a plain,

palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law.” Jacobson, 197 U.S. at

20
31. The Governor’s actions here meet that standard. This is most conspicuous in

the open infringement of both state and federal rights to bear arms—though the

PHEO also implicates, e.g., the rights of children to be free of excessive punishment

or of having their bodily fluids tested for “illicit substances” without consent. See,

e.g., State v. Gage R., 2010-NMCA-104, ¶ 12, 149 N.M. 14, 243 P.3d 453 (describing

that “suspicionless drug tests” of students violate the Fourth Amendment unless the

school has both consent and “a safety concern that is substantial enough”).

“[T]he Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to

carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2122. In

Bruen, the Supreme Court concluded that requiring citizens to “demonstrate[] a

special need” before permitting them to carry firearms in public “violates the

Constitution.” Id. The federal constitutional right to bear arms is not and cannot be

subject to the weighing of government interests; “[t]he very enumeration of the right

takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the

power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting

upon.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 634 (emphasis in original). Banning the possession of

firearms “either openly or concealed,” as the PHEO does, is a total ban on all legal

possession in public, see PHEO at 1-2, which cannot be reconciled with the Second

Amendment. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2118.

21
 “[I]t is well established that while state courts generally may find greater

degrees of protection under their state constitutions where state and federal

constitutional provisions overlap, we may not restrict the protection afforded by the

federal Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.” Young v.

Wilham, 2017-NMCA-087, ¶ 43, 406 P.3d 988 (quotations omitted). Here, though,

any difference is immaterial because the PHEO violates both constitutions. The New

Mexico Constitution provides:

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for
security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for
other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the
carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall
regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

N.M. Const. art. II, § 6. “Article II, Section 6 is designed to establish the right of

individual citizens ‘to keep and bear arms,’ and to limit interference with that right.”

Denko, 2004-NMSC-011, ¶ 7; see also Griego v. Oliver, 2014-NMSC-003, ¶ 1, 316

P.3d 865 (including “the right to bear arms” among the “inherent rights enjoyed by

all New Mexicans”); City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 1971-NMCA-074, ¶ 8, 82 N.M.

626, 485 P.2d 737 (“It is our opinion that an ordinance may not deny the people the

constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, and to that extent the ordinance under

consideration is void.”).

The PHEO bans New Mexico citizens from openly and lawfully bearing arms

in public, despite that right being enshrined in Article II, § 6. It prevents anyone

22
from lawfully possessing a loaded and “operable” firearm while traveling, although

“[s]imply possessing a firearm within a vehicle has always been a right guaranteed

by our state’s constitution.” State v. Candelaria, 2011-NMCA-001, ¶ 20, 149 N.M.

125, 245 P.3d 69; see also State v. Garcia, 2005-NMSC-017, ¶ 31, 138 N.M. 1, 116

P.3d 72 (“In New Mexico it is lawful for a non-felon to carry a loaded handgun in a

private automobile or other private means of conveyance.” (quotations omitted)). It

also undercuts the reasoning in Baca v. N.M. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2002-NMSC-017,

¶ 6, 132 N.M. 282, 47 P.3d 441, in which the Court held that Article II, § 6 “indicates

an intent to preclude piecemeal administration at a local level and to ensure

uniformity in the regulation of firearms throughout the State of New Mexico.” The

PHEO makes no attempt at uniformity, instead imposing regulations piecemeal only

within certain “cities or counties.” See PHEO at 1.

A government’s response to health emergencies must be “in harmony with its

own and the Federal Constitution[.]” German All. Ins. Co. v. Hale, 219 U.S. 307,

317 (1911). PHERA itself echoes this by stating that its purpose is to “provide the

state of New Mexico with the ability to manage public health emergencies in a

manner that protects civil rights and the liberties of individual persons,” NMSA

1978, § 12-10A-2(A) (emphasis added); by its text, the statute suggests no conflict

between its provisions and the rights secured by the state or federal constitutions, or

any legislative intent to override those rights—even if it had the power to do so, cf.

23
State v. Lynch, 2003-NMSC-020, ¶ 21, 134 N.M. 139, 74 P.3d 73 (“As a general

proposition, statutes may provide greater, but not less, protection to individual rights

than the constitution.”).

THE RELIEF SOUGHT

The Court should issue an extraordinary writ invalidating the PHEO and both

of the executive orders at issue in this case, as well as any citations or other punitive

measures issued pursuant thereto. Assuming final relief cannot be promptly granted,

the Court should immediately stay enforcement of the orders.

Respectfully submitted,

HARRISON & HART, LLC

By:
Carter B. Harrison IV
924 Park Avenue SW, Suite E
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Tel: (505) 295-3261
Fax: (505) 341-9340
[email protected]

KENNEDY, HERNANDEZ &

HARRISON, P.C.

By: /s/ Elizabeth A. Harrison

Paul J. Kennedy
Jessica M. Hernandez
Elizabeth A. Harrison
201 Twelfth Street NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Tel: (505) 842-8662

24
 — and —

T. Ryan Lane
T. RYAN LANE, P.C.
103 S. Main Avenue
Aztec, NM 87410

— and —

Greg Baca
BACA LAW OFFICES
2214 Sun Ranch Village Loop
Los Lunas, NM 87031

Counsel for the Petitioners

Sophie Cooper
1595 Camino de la Tierra
Corrales, NM 87048
Tel: (505) 903-2228
[email protected]

Counsel for Petitioner

Libertarian Party of New Mexico

Exhibits
Ex. 1: Public Health Order (3 pages)
Ex. 2: Executive Order on Gun Violence (3 pages)
Ex. 3: Executive Order on Drug Abuse (3 pages)

25
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that this Petition complies with the type-volume, font size,

and word limitations of the New Mexico Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically

Rule 12-504(G)(3) NMRA, which limits these petitions to no more than 6,000

words. The body of this brief employs 14-point Times New Roman font and contains

5,986 words, counted using the ‘Word Count’ feature of Microsoft Office’s Word

(Microsoft 365 version).

HARRISON & HART, LLC

By: /s/ Carter B. Harrison IV

Carter B. Harrison IV

26
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 14th day of September 2023, a true and correct

copy of the foregoing Petition was served by email upon Respondents by way of

emails to their respective general counsels, Holly Agajanian

([email protected]), Jason R. Greenlee ([email protected]),

and Paul R. Ritzma ([email protected]). I also sent a copy to all three offices

by First-Class U.S. Mail.

HARRISON & HART, LLC

By: /s/ Carter B. Harrison IV

Carter B. Harrison IV

27