This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
In 2007, the New Mexico Legislature amended Sections 30-18-1 and 30-18-9 of the New Mexico Statutes to ban cockfighting, removing its exemption from animal cruelty laws and imposing criminal penalties for participation. The New Mexico Gamefowl Association (NMGA) and several business owners challenged the ban, arguing it violated constitutional protections, including those under Article II, Section 5 of the New Mexico Constitution, which preserves rights guaranteed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Lea County: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, holding that they lacked standing and that the statutes banning cockfighting were constitutional (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the cockfighting ban violated procedural requirements under Article IV, Section 15 of the New Mexico Constitution, infringed on substantive rights under Article II, Section 5, and caused economic and cultural harm to individuals and businesses associated with cockfighting (paras 4, 16-18, 37).
- Defendants-Appellees: Contended that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the courts could not review legislative adherence to procedural requirements, and the New Mexico Constitution did not protect cockfighting as a cultural practice or property use (paras 3, 6, 9).
Legal Issues
- Did the Legislature violate Article IV, Section 15 of the New Mexico Constitution in enacting the cockfighting ban?
- Do the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the cockfighting ban?
- Does the cockfighting ban violate Article II, Section 5 of the New Mexico Constitution by infringing on rights guaranteed under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of the cockfighting ban but reversed the district court's ruling on NMGA's associational standing, allowing NMGA to challenge the statutes (paras 1, 63).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Wechsler and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
Legislative Procedure: The court declined to review the Legislature's adherence to Article IV, Section 15, citing precedent that courts cannot look behind an enrolled and authenticated bill to determine procedural compliance. The separation of powers principle places responsibility for compliance with constitutional requirements on the Legislature itself (paras 5-11).
Standing:
- Individual Plaintiffs: The court found that individual plaintiffs, including business owners and spectators, lacked standing. Business plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a constitutional interest in their economic losses, and spectator plaintiffs did not face a credible threat of prosecution under the cockfighting ban (paras 15-27).
- Associational Standing: The court held that NMGA had associational standing because its members faced a credible threat of prosecution under the ban, the challenge was germane to NMGA's purpose, and the relief sought did not require individual members' participation (paras 30-36).
Constitutionality of the Ban:
- Article II, Section 5: The court rejected the argument that the cockfighting ban violated rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The Treaty protects property rights but does not extend to culturally bound uses of property, such as cockfighting. The court emphasized that the Treaty guarantees rights under U.S. law, not Mexican law, and that the ban did not constitute a regulatory taking of property (paras 37-62).
- Regulatory Taking: The court distinguished the case from precedents involving physical occupation of property, finding that the ban merely restricted one use of the birds without depriving owners of other property rights (paras 59-61).
The court concluded that the cockfighting ban was constitutional and upheld the district court's judgment, except for its ruling on NMGA's standing (para 63).