State v. Wilson, 489 P.3d 925

Background

The Governor and Secretary of Health issued a series of COVID-19 public health orders (PHOs) imposing occupancy limits and temporary closures of categories of businesses under the Public Health Emergency Response Act (PHERA).
Multiple small-business plaintiffs filed suit in district courts across New Mexico seeking just compensation for lost revenues and expenses, alleging the PHOs effectively took or damaged private property.
The Supreme Court granted a writ of superintending control to resolve the threshold legal question whether (1) Article II, § 20 of the New Mexico Constitution (takings) or (2) PHERA § 12-10A-15 (statutory compensation) authorize recovery for harms caused by PHOs.
The Court took judicial notice of COVID-19 facts and prior NM decisions (Reeb and Romero) addressing PHOs and police-power authority during the pandemic.
Holding (summary): (a) PHOs, as currently constituted, do not support a facial claim for just compensation under Article II, § 20; (b) PHERA § 12-10A-15(A) compensates only for property actually taken/appropriated and used for public-health purposes—not business losses from occupancy limits/closures; and (c) claimants under § 12-10A-15(A) must exhaust the administrative process in § 12-10A-15(B) before suing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do the PHOs constitute a compensable taking under Art. II, § 20?	PHOs deprived businesses of property use and income; compensation required.	PHOs are a reasonable exercise of the police power to protect public health and are not a taking.	PHOs cannot support a facial takings claim: reasonable police-power regulation is insulated (nuisance/ public-interest exception); temporary/partial limits weigh against compensation.
Does PHERA § 12-10A-15(A) authorize compensation for business losses from PHOs?	"Any other property" should be read broadly to cover business losses and lost revenues.	"Any other property" is limited to property actually taken/appropriated and used for public-health purposes; otherwise would create unlimited liability.	"Any other property" is a functional, use-linked catch-all limited by preceding terms (health care supplies/facilities); business losses from occupancy limits/closures do not qualify absent actual seizure/appropriation.
Must claimants exhaust PHERA administrative remedies before judicial relief?	Administrative process is futile or already decided; court review should be allowed.	PHERA expressly requires a preliminary determination by the Attorney General and an appeal procedure; exhaustion is mandatory.	Exhaustion is jurisdictional: claimants under § 12-10A-15(A) must pursue the § 12-10A-15(B)/(C) administrative process before suing.
Should courts apply Penn Central ad hoc takings analysis or Lucas categorical rule here?	Plaintiffs seek Penn Central fact-intensive review for partial takings.	State says nuisance/public-health purpose and temporary nature bar Penn Central review on a facial challenge; Lucas only applies to permanent total deprivation.	Penn Central inquiries are inappropriate at the facial stage where PHOs are reasonable police-power measures; Lucas only threatens compensation where there is permanent total deprivation, and background nuisance principles may defeat such claims.

Key Cases Cited

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1905) (upholding state quarantine power and framing deference to public-health measures)
Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133 (U.S. 1894) (articulating the two-part reasonableness test for police-power regulations)
Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (U.S. 1887) (nuisance/public-health regulation need not be treated as a compensable taking)
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1922) (Holmes: regulation can go "too far" and become a taking)
Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (ad hoc factors for regulatory takings)
Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992) (categorical rule: total deprivation of all economically beneficial use is compensable absent background- law exception)
Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1987) (nuisance/public-interest rationale can preclude compensation)
Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (U.S. 2002) (temporary moratoria may not constitute takings)
Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272 (U.S. 1928) (destruction of property to prevent greater public harm need not be compensated)
Reeb v. Lujan Grisham, 480 P.3d 852 (N.M. 2021) (New Mexico Supreme Court decision discussing PHOs and executive authority)
Romero v. Lujan Grisham, 483 P.3d 545 (N.M. 2021) (New Mexico Supreme Court decision upholding aspects of PHOs and reviewing arbitrary/capricious claims)