Atencio v. State

The New Mexico Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an intermediate appellate court’s decision ordering dismissal of their claims under the New Mexico Constitution that the State’s system for regulating pollution from oil and natural gas violated the plaintiffs’ rights. The Supreme Court said it would review all five issues presented by the petition: (1) Did the appellate court fundamentally misapprehend its duty to enforce positive constitutional rights, wrongly ignore relevant constitutional jurisprudence from New Mexico and other states, and effectively erase the Pollution Control Clause by finding Plaintiffs’ claims under the Clause nonjusticiable and beyond judicial review?; (2) Did the appellate court erroneously conclude, on motions to dismiss, that Defendants have fulfilled their duties under the Pollution Control Clause by holding that any amount of pollution control and revenue raised from the extraction of oil and gas fulfills the duties imposed?; (3) Did the appellate court misconstrue and limit the power of the Declaratory Judgment Act?; (4) Did the appellate court err in deciding that substantive due process under the New Mexico Constitution cannot be invoked to protect residents from state actions permitting oil and gas pollution that harms their life, liberty, property, safety, happiness, and beautiful and healthful environment?; and (5) Did the appellate court err in deciding that the New Mexico Constitution’s equal protection clause can never protect classes of people disproportionally harmed by state actions permitting oil and gas pollution?

Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the New Mexico Supreme Court seeking review of an intermediate appellate court’s June 2025 decision ordering dismissal of their claims under the New Mexico Constitution that the State’s system for regulating pollution from oil and natural gas violated the plaintiffs’ rights. The plaintiffs’ petition argued that the New Mexico Constitution’s Pollution Control Clause creates a “positive constitutional right” that must be enforced by the courts and that deeming claims under it nonjusticiable would make New Mexico an outlier. In addition, the plaintiffs argued that the intermediate appellate court erred by concluding at the motion to dismiss stage that the State defendants complied with the Constitution; misconstrued and limited the power of the Declaratory Judgment Act; erred in concluding that substantive due process was not applicable; and erred in concluding that the New Mexico Constitution’s equal protection clause “can never protect classes of people disproportionally harmed by state actions permitting oil and gas pollution.”