The New Mexico Supreme Court has upheld Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s controversial emergency order banning firearms in public spaces, ruling 3-2 in favor of her executive authority. As reported by Courthouse News Service’s Joe Duhownik, the decision affirms the governor’s use of the Public Health Emergency Response Act (PHERA) to justify gun restrictions in response to rising violence and drug-related deaths.
The ruling, while expected to set legal precedent, has drawn sharp criticism from gun rights advocates and Republican lawmakers who argue it sets a dangerous expansion of executive power.
The Scope of the Emergency Order
Governor Lujan Grisham first declared a public health emergency in September 2023, citing gun violence and drug abuse as public crises. The order initially banned firearms from all state-owned property, public parks, and playgrounds in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County for 30 days, though it was renewed multiple times. According to NRA-ILA, the ban sparked immediate lawsuits from the National Rifle Association (NRA), Republican lawmakers, and libertarian activists, who contended that the governor overstepped her legal authority.
A Deeply Divided Supreme Court
The legal battle culminated in a 3-2 decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court, with Chief Justice C. Shannon Bacon writing the majority opinion. Duhownik’s report highlights the justices’ reasoning, stating that the petitioners failed to prove the executive order removed legislative authority or conflicted with existing laws. The court also agreed with the governor’s argument that gun violence and drug abuse “comfortably fall within” the PHERA’s definition of a public health emergency.
Dissenting Voices Raise Alarms
However, not all justices agreed. Justice Michael Vigil, one of the two dissenters, warned that the ruling dramatically lowers the threshold for executive overreach. “Extraordinary powers are given to the governor to be exercised in extraordinary circumstances,” Vigil wrote. “The majority opinion sets the bar far below what the Legislature requires for the exercise of those extraordinary powers, and therefore, I must dissent.” This echoes concerns raised by the NRA-ILA, which pointed out that the ruling focuses only on the governor’s emergency powers rather than addressing Second Amendment protections.
Republicans Decry the Decision
Gun rights advocates see this decision as an alarming expansion of executive authority. The New Mexico Republican Party issued a statement, as reported by Duhownik, condemning the ruling and warning that it opens the door to further abuses of power. Party Chairwoman Amy Barela argued that Democrats are laying the groundwork for future governors to invoke emergency powers on other constitutional rights. “Will a future Democratic governor declare an ’emergency’ over climate change to seize property? Ban free speech to combat ‘misinformation’?” she asked, criticizing the court for failing to set stricter limits on emergency declarations.
A National Precedent?
Jared Yanis, host of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News, took the ruling a step further, arguing that it establishes a roadmap for governors across the country to restrict gun rights under the guise of a public health crisis. In his video, he called the decision “a blatant infringement” on constitutional freedoms. “If we fall for this, we allow this to stand, then every governor can create a scenario where they can suspend all of your rights because of a public health crisis,” Yanis said, warning that other states may attempt similar executive actions.
Changes to the Original Ban
It’s worth noting that the governor’s order underwent modifications following legal challenges. Courthouse News Service reported that the broad ban on public gun carrying was reduced to only include state property and certain public spaces. Albuquerque already had an ordinance prohibiting weapons in parks and recreation facilities, which remained in effect. Additionally, Lujan Grisham’s order included provisions for gun buybacks, stricter firearm dealer inspections, and mandatory reporting of gunshot victims at hospitals.
Constitutional Questions Remain Unanswered
One striking element of the ruling, as pointed out by the NRA-ILA, is that the court did not rule on the Second Amendment implications of the ban. Instead, the case was decided solely on the governor’s ability to issue emergency orders. This leaves open the possibility of future lawsuits directly challenging the constitutionality of the restrictions. Yanis criticized this aspect of the ruling, calling it a missed opportunity to reinforce the right to bear arms. “It’s obvious that this violates the Second Amendment,” he said. “The court dodged the real issue.”
What Comes Next for New Mexico?
Though Lujan Grisham did not renew the emergency orders in October 2024, the Supreme Court’s ruling solidifies the legal precedent for similar actions in the future. Chief Justice Bacon acknowledged this in her opinion, stating that the ruling was necessary to prevent governors from issuing emergency orders, revoking them once challenged, and avoiding legal scrutiny. The decision could embolden future governors to take broader actions under PHERA, something that Justice Vigil and other critics find deeply troubling.
Political Fallout
The decision has fueled political tensions in New Mexico, with Republicans vowing to challenge the ruling through legislation or at the ballot box. According to Duhownik’s report, lawmakers are considering efforts to amend the Public Health Emergency Response Act to specifically exclude gun violence as a qualifying emergency. Such a move, however, would require bipartisan support and a shift in legislative priorities.
A Bureaucratic Overreach or a Necessary Measure?
There’s no denying that gun violence is a major issue in New Mexico. However, the question remains: should governors have the power to suspend constitutional rights under the guise of a health emergency? While Lujan Grisham and her supporters argue that decisive action is needed to curb gun deaths, critics warn that the precedent could be used to justify even greater governmental control in the future. As Yanis put it, “Today it’s gun rights, tomorrow it could be something else.”
The Future of Gun Rights in America
The New Mexico Supreme Court’s ruling is a significant moment in the national gun debate. While the case was specific to emergency powers, it reflects a broader trend of executive action being used to impose firearm restrictions. Whether this ruling remains a one-time legal anomaly or a turning point in Second Amendment law is something that will likely be tested in future court cases.
For now, gun rights advocates remain on high alert, watching closely for any further attempts to regulate firearms under the banner of public health.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.