One of the most controversial bills in this year’s legislative session became law on Thursday.
And many lawyers hail it as a breakthrough in protecting residents’ civil rights.
New Mexico’s civil rights law allows New Mexicans to sue government entities in state courts if they believe their civil rights have been violated, and it eliminates “immunity. qualified âas a defense in such complaints.
Qualified immunity protects government workers from personal liability under federal law when workers violate people’s constitutional rights.
Lawmakers supporting New Mexico’s civil rights law have said they will hold government agencies accountable in a way that was only possible through federal courts.
Several New Mexico civil rights attorneys said they expected an increase in the number of such cases filed in state courts, but not right away.
âIt may take a while,â said Maureen Sanders, Albuquerque civil rights lawyer. “This will only apply to actions that take place after July 1, so if something happened to you two years ago, you cannot bring it. [to court] under this law.
She said the new law is important because âin the past we did not have an effective way to sue for damages for a violation of our state constitutional rights because we did not have a law that says you can sue for damages â.
Interference with freedom of expression, religion or elections are among the civil rights violations that citizens could prosecute under the new law.
Residents can also sue if they believe they have been unduly or cruelly punished or illegally detained against their will by government agencies.
Lysette Romero CÃ³rdova, who worked as an appeals lawyer before becoming an assistant professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law, said the law is important because “what good is a right without recourse?”
She said only one other state – Colorado – had enacted a similar law.
âWhat we are doing is new and historic,â she said. âIt’s good that we are doing something innovative. “
She said it was too early to say what the ramifications of the law would be.
âYou can have well-meaning legislation, but you just don’t know how it’s going to work in individual cases,â she said. “I know there will be problems that will crop up – things you can’t predict at the drafting stage and can’t see until a case is in court.”
But lawmakers can fix these issues with amendments in future legislative sessions, she said.
House Bill 4 did not make it through the legislative session with ease. Some Republican lawmakers and government officials have said city and county governments will either become uninsurable or face financial problems in arguing such cases.
Grace Philips, general counsel for the New Mexico County Association, said the law could cost local governments millions of dollars.
On Thursday, she said the association remains “very concerned that there will be costs. We have a law now and we will wait and see and we will be happy if we are wrong.”
CÃ³rdova said such concerns are legitimate. In a follow-up email, she wrote: âWe can either agree to leave New Mexicans without recourse when the government violates a constitutional right of the state, or give them recourse and accept the cost of that.
âIt is a judgment that the legislature had to render, and it did. He ruled that the tax implications did not outweigh the benefits of greater government accountability and compensation for victims of government misconduct. “
The law sets a limit of $ 2 million in damages for any government entity, and it does not allow plaintiffs to sue individual employees, such as a police officer or a teacher. It also leaves it to the courts to award attorney fees in cases where the claimant wins.
Several New Mexico lawyers have said holding government entities to account can make a difference in reducing civil rights violations. Governments could launch training programs to try to prevent individual misconduct from happening again.
Albuquerque civil rights attorney Laura Schauer Ives said government agencies – not individual employees – would be the ones who would end up footing the bill in the event of a loss.
âThere really was no sense in exposing individuals to the fear of individual responsibility when it was the employer who had to pay,â she said.
Santa Fe attorney Richard Rosenstock said people tend to view such cases in terms of police misconduct and abuse, but HB 4 “is not a police bill” , did he declare. âThis is a bill to prosecute government officials for violations of the New Mexico state constitution. And there are a lot of New Mexico government officials who are not police officers.
He said many civil rights cases in federal courts had nothing to do with police but dealt with First Amendment violations or job applications.
âOne area where I can see complaints coming up is the CYFD [Children, Youth and Families Department], “he said.” There could be a lot, maybe … like placing a child in foster care where they are raped or taking a child out of the family inappropriately. “
Albuquerque civil rights attorney Ryan Villa said one downside of not being able to file a complaint against an individual is that you can’t easily track an employee’s repeated violations.
âProsecuting the person helps identify repeat offenders,â he said. âIf I sue Joe Smith and another lawyer sues Joe Smith and another lawyer sues Joe Smith, there’s a case, and you can tell there’s a trend here.
âThe state’s civil rights law says you can’t name Joe Smith, so you’re relying on the government entity to tell you during a trial – if Joe Smith does three wrong things. And we know a lot of entities don’t tell us that on purpose or because their data systems aren’t set up so they can actually verify it.
Yet the law will hold officials accountable “in the form of money,” he said.
âIt remains to be seen if you get changes on the ground or get this employer to do things differently,â he said.