NEW ENERGY ECONOMY, INC. v. Shoobridge, 149 N.M. 42

Legislature empowered Environmental Improvement Board to regulate air pollution and promulgate regulations under the Air Quality Control Act.
New Energy proposed greenhouse gas regulation; Board held hearing and considered jurisdiction and authority to regulate.
Opposition groups argued Board lacked authority absent ambient air quality standards; Board set hearing schedule on jurisdiction.
Hearing occurred; Board found it had authority and scheduled further proceedings; objections and petitioners sought to halt proceedings.
Plaintiffs filed declaratory judgment and injunctive relief; district court granted a preliminary injunction blocking further rule-making.
Board and New Energy sought writs; this Court granted superintending control, dissolved injunction, dismissed action, and remanded to the agency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a court halt rule-making before adoption?	Hanosh authority to challenge Board's statutory power supports stay.	Separation of powers and lack of ripe controversy prohibit premature interference.	Court may not halt rule-making before rule adoption.
Is the declaratory judgment action ripe before a final rule is adopted?	Purely legal challenge to statutory authority should be resolvable now.	Ripeness and actual controversy require final agency action.	Action was not ripe; declaratory judgment improper before final rule.
Does separation of powers permit judicial interference with administrative proceedings?	Judicial review can test authority without delaying rule-making.	Intervening would thwart legislative-branch rule-making and public participation.	Courts should not intervene to halt administrative hearings prior to rule adoption.
Are prudential ripeness considerations applicable to state declaratory actions?	New Mexico constitution permits declaratory relief on pure questions of law.	Ripeness and actual controversy require final rule and demonstrated aggrievement.	Prudential ripeness governs; action not ripe without final rule.
Should the district court have continued to adjudicate the declaratory action?	Declaratory judgment is appropriate to determine agency authority.	Interfering would disrupt the agency process and public participation.	Dismiss the complaint and remand to the agency; protect separation of powers.

State ex rel. Hanosh v. Environmental Improvement Bd., 145 N.M. 269 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (declaratory judgment appropriate to challenge agency authority; partly relied on for timing)
State ex rel. Hanosh v. King, 217 P.3d 100 (N.M. 2009) (affirmed ability to raise purely legal challenge to statutory authority)
Smith v. City of Santa Fe, 171 P.3d 300 (N.M. 2007) (declaratory judgments may challenge administrative authority if appropriate)
Stennis v. City of Santa Fe, 176 P.3d 309 (N.M. 2008) (limits on using declaratory relief to circumvent administrative review)
State ex rel. Regents of ENMU v. Baca, 189 P.3d 663 (N.M. 2008) (restricts bypassing administrative appeal when issues are purely legal)
In re Extradition of Martinez, 20 P.3d 126 (N.M. 2001) (separation of powers and caution against premature judicial interference)