483 P.3d 545
N.M.2021Background
- March 11, 2020: Governor declared a public-health emergency for COVID-19; Secretary of Health issued successive emergency public-health orders restricting gatherings and businesses, including bans on indoor restaurant dining.
- Indoor dining was permitted in June 2020 but the Secretary reinstated a statewide ban on indoor dining by the July 13, 2020 emergency public health order (the July Order) in response to rising COVID-19 spread.
- Six restaurants and the New Mexico Restaurant Association filed in district court (July 14, 2020) seeking a TRO and injunction to enjoin enforcement of the July Order’s indoor-dining ban.
- The district court issued a statewide TRO (July 20); the State obtained emergency relief from the New Mexico Supreme Court (writ of superintending control and stay of the TRO).
- The Supreme Court considered (1) whether Petitioners (Governor/Secretary) had statutory authority to restrict/close businesses during a public-health emergency, and (2) whether the July Order’s indoor-dining ban was arbitrary and capricious. The Court granted the writ, vacated the TRO, and dismissed the application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to restrict/close businesses (ultra vires / separation of powers) | Secretary lacks statutory authority; orders exceed legislative power and intrude on lawmaking; executive must use rulemaking or legislation. | PHERA, PHA, DOH Act and AHEMA authorize executive emergency orders to close public places and forbid gatherings; delegation is constitutional and needed for prompt response. | Held: Secretary had authority under PHA/PHERA/AHEMA to issue business-closure orders during a public-health emergency; no unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power. |
| Whether the July Order was arbitrary and capricious | Ban lacks adequate factual basis, is overbroad, not least-restrictive, and requires whole-record review and evidentiary hearing. | Emergency orders are executive, fact-intensive, deserve deference; record (affidavits/data) shows indoor dining presents heightened transmission risk and supports the ban. | Held: July Order not arbitrary or capricious; real and substantial relation to public-health objective established; no remand for evidentiary hearing required. |
| Appropriateness of TRO and this Court’s interlocutory writ/stay | Plaintiffs: TRO necessary to avoid irreparable economic harm; district court acted within discretion. | Petitioners: TRO improvidently granted without adversary hearing; extraordinary writ and stay appropriate to prevent irreparable public-health harm. | Held: District court improvidently granted TRO (insufficient showing under heightened injunction standards); Supreme Court properly stayed TRO and issued writ. |
| Whether rulemaking (State Rules Act) required for business closures | Agency must use the State Rules Act (formal rulemaking) to impose substantive restrictions; emergency orders improperly function as rules. | Emergency orders are distinct, temporary executive actions suited to rapidly changing public-health crises; rulemaking is impractical and not required. | Held: Closure authority may be exercised by emergency orders; rulemaking requirement does not bar emergency executive action here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (upholding reasonable state public-health regulation and applying deferential review in health emergencies)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (framework on separation of powers and limits on executive authority)
- O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 2004) (characterizing historically disfavored injunctions and heightened burden for extraordinary equitable relief)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (describing the narrow instances in which rational-basis review invalidates governmental classifications)
- State ex rel. Hughes v. Cleveland, 47 N.M. 230 (1943) (New Mexico precedent stating courts should uphold public-health regulations unless they plainly lack a real relation to their object)
- LaBalbo v. Hymes, 115 N.M. 314 (1993) (applying four-factor test for injunctive relief)