SANTA FE, N.M. — On Thursday, the New Mexico Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned local abortion restrictions implemented by conservative municipalities, reinforcing the state’s standing as a haven for individuals seeking abortion services from regions with stricter laws.
The court’s unanimous decision comes in response to a request from state Attorney General Raúl Torrez and emphasizes New Mexico’s reputation for having some of the most permissive abortion laws in the nation.
Representatives for the cities of Hobbs and Clovis, as well as Lea and Roosevelt counties, contended that a federal anti-vice law, known as the Comstock Act, would prevent courts from invalidating local abortion regulations.
However, Justice C. Shannon Bacon, who authored the majority opinion, asserted that state legislation prohibits local governments from imposing restrictions on abortion or regulating abortion facilities.
“The ordinances breach this fundamental principle and encroach upon the authority of the Legislature to govern access to and provision of reproductive healthcare,” she stated. “We declare that these ordinances are entirely preempted.”
Attorney General Torrez lauded the court’s ruling, highlighting that state laws take precedence over local actions that could undermine the constitutional rights of citizens.
“The main takeaway is clear: Abortion access remains secure and protected in New Mexico,” he emphasized. “This is established in law by the recent ruling of the New Mexico Supreme Court and the diligent efforts of the New Mexico Legislature.”
New Mexico House Speaker Javier Martínez declared that access to healthcare is a fundamental right within the state.
“It’s evident from the legal framework that local authorities do not oversee healthcare regulation in New Mexico; it rests with the state,” the Democrat from Albuquerque remarked.
Despite strong opposition to abortion from communities near the Texas border—where one of the most stringent bans in the nation exists—Democrats, who dominate all statewide offices and hold majorities in both legislative chambers, have aimed to strengthen abortion access, particularly in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022.
In 2021, the legislature repealed a long-standing 1969 law that classified most abortion procedures as felonies, thus safeguarding access even after the repeal of Roe. Furthermore, in 2023, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, enacted legislation to nullify local measures that sought to limit abortion access and introduced a shield law to protect abortion providers from investigations initiated by other states.
Additionally, construction has commenced on a state-funded reproductive health and abortion clinic located in southern New Mexico, which aims to serve both local residents and individuals traveling from nearby states.
The clinic is projected to be operational by early 2026, offering a variety of services, including medical and procedural abortions, contraception, cervical cancer screenings, and adoption education.
In their Thursday ruling, the justices notably reprimanded Roosevelt County for proposing an ordinance that would permit individuals to initiate lawsuits for damages exceeding $100,000 in response to violations of the county’s abortion ordinance.
The court characterized this provision as creating a “private right of action and damages award that is unequivocally geared towards penalizing protected conduct.”
Erin Hawley, vice president at Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal advocacy organization based in Arizona, represented Roosevelt County in the case. She voiced her disapproval of the court’s ruling, emphasizing its limitations.
“Roosevelt County and other localities in New Mexico should have the ability to enforce regulations that are consistent with federal law and ensure the safety of their residents,” she said, noting her connection as the spouse of U.S. Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri. “We appreciate that the New Mexico Supreme Court did not forgo sensible reasoning and create an alleged right to abortion within the state constitution.”
It remains uncertain if the ruling can be contested in federal court or if it will impact broader efforts to impose Comstock Act constraints on abortion.
The New Mexico Supreme Court specifically refrained from addressing potential conflicts with federal legislation and relied solely on state law for its ruling.
Jonathan Mitchell, an attorney based in Austin and the former Texas solicitor general influential in crafting Texas’s severe abortion restrictions, expressed eagerness to explore legal avenues concerning these issues in other states and potentially present the interpretation of the federal Comstock Act before the Supreme Court.
