AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The federal government allocated approximately $1.75 billion to New Mexico under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) for COVID-19-related financial assistance. The Governor of New Mexico vetoed legislative attempts to appropriate these funds, asserting exclusive executive authority to administer them. Subsequently, the Governor spent about $600 million of the ARPA funds. State Senators filed suit seeking a writ of mandandus to prevent the Governor from spending the remaining ARPA funds without legislative appropriation (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners (State Senators): Argued that the legislative branch has the authority to appropriate the ARPA funds and sought a writ of mandamus to prohibit the Governor from expending any additional ARPA funds without legislative appropriation (para 4).
• Respondent (Governor): Contended that the Legislature lacked the authority to direct the administration of federal funds and that the executive branch has the exclusive authority to administer the ARPA funds (para 3).
• Intervenors-Petitioners (Additional State Senators): Supported the original petitioners' position, seeking to intervene in the proceedings.

Legal Issues

• Whether the legislative or executive branch has the authority to control the expenditure of ARPA funds provided to New Mexico (para 1).
• Whether a writ of mandamus is the proper form of relief to address the dispute over the expenditure of ARPA funds (para 8).

Disposition

• Issued a prohibitory writ of mandamus and an order providing that the Governor and State Treasurer shall not transfer, encumber, commit, expend, or appropriate any additional ARPA funds absent legislative appropriation (para 4).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico, per Justice Vargas, held that the ARPA funds are subject to legislative appropriation. The Court reasoned that the broad discretion provided by ARPA for the use of funds necessitates legislative appropriation, as the executive's unilateral control over these funds would infringe upon the Legislature's constitutional appropriation power. The Court distinguished this case from previous rulings, adopting a totality of the circumstances approach to determine the branch of government with the authority to spend ARPA funds. The Court concluded that the significant discretion left to the state in allocating the ARPA funds meant they must be appropriated by the Legislature, not administered unilaterally by the Governor. The Court also addressed the Governor's argument regarding suspense accounts, finding that the use of such accounts for ARPA funds does not remove them from the treasury or impact the constitutional analysis of which branch has control over the funds (paras 5-42).