Alamogordo NM
6-15-2026 10:38pm

COMPANION ARTICLE: NM Supreme Court Rules Today That Government Cannot Hide Public Records Behind Its Own Policies — And It Lands Directly on Alamogordo's June 23 Court Date

June 15, 2026 | Alamogordo, New Mexico

Case: American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico v. New Mexico Corrections Department, No. S-1-SC-40473

Filed at New Mexico Supreme Court: June 15, 2026, 10:07 AM

ALAMOGORDO, N.M. — At 10:07 this morning, the New Mexico Supreme Court filed a unanimous ruling that no government agency in this state can use its own internal policies to keep public records secret. The authority to shield records from public view must come from the New Mexico Legislature — not from the agency holding the records. Not from a resolution. Not from a city attorney's memo. Not from a policy handbook. Not from a designation stamped "confidential" by a bureaucrat.

For the City of Alamogordo, which has a transparency lawsuit — Case D-1215-CV-2022-00434 — going to court in eight days, this ruling is not background noise. It is a direct legal event with immediate local consequences.

"Every person has a right to inspect public records of this state. This right is limited only by the Legislature's enumeration of certain categories of records that are excepted from inspection." — Republican Party of NM v. NM Taxation & Revenue Dept., 2012-NMSC-026, reaffirmed June 15, 2026

The Case: Seven Years in the Making

The case began simply. In August 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico sent an IPRA request to the New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) asking for two categories of records: the department's use-of-force policy, and all records related to its use of force against incarcerated people.

NMCD acknowledged the records existed. It acknowledged they were responsive to the IPRA request. Then it refused to hand them over.

The department's justification: its own internal policies had designated those documents as confidential. Under IPRA's "as otherwise provided by law" catchall exemption — NMSA 1978, §14-2-1(L) — NMCD argued that its internal confidentiality designations had "the force of law" because they were "premised on a sound and compelling penological basis." In plain language: we decided these records are secret, therefore they are legally secret.

The ACLU filed suit. The district court ordered NMCD to produce the records for in-camera review — meaning a judge examined them privately — before ruling. After that review, the district court concluded most of the records had to be disclosed, but allowed some portions to be withheld under a "clear necessity" standard. Both sides appealed.

In May 2024, the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled entirely in the ACLU's favor: all the records at issue had to be disclosed. The Court of Appeals concluded that neither of NMCD's enabling statutes — NMSA 1978, §33-1-6 (the Corrections Act) nor §9-3-5(E) (the department's general rulemaking authority) — provided the specific, legislative authority required to invoke IPRA's catchall exemption. An agency's general power to make internal rules does not transform those rules into law capable of overriding IPRA.

NMCD appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court. On September 6, 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Today, June 15, 2026, the Court issued its unanimous ruling — affirming the principle that government cannot make its own records untouchable by calling them confidential.

SOURCING NOTE: The Court of Appeals opinion (No. A-1-CA-40486, decided May 31, 2024) is published at FindLaw and forms the legal foundation affirmed today. The Supreme Court docket (No. S-1-SC-40473) is confirmed on the NM Supreme Court's oral arguments page. The June 15 Supreme Court ruling is reported by NMFOG, which filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the ACLU. 2nd Life Media will update this article when the full Supreme Court opinion text becomes publicly indexed.

What the New Mexico Supreme Court Held Today

The core holding: An agency's internal policy, rule, or confidentiality designation — standing alone — does not constitute "law" under IPRA's catchall exemption. To invoke IPRA's "as otherwise provided by law" exception, a government body must point to a specific statute passed by the Legislature or a regulation properly adopted through formal rulemaking procedures that explicitly authorizes withholding the type of record at issue.

What the Court rejected: The argument that an agency's general rulemaking authority — its power to adopt internal rules to run its operations — is sufficient to create IPRA exemptions. NMCD argued its enabling statutes gave it broad power to designate records as confidential for penological reasons. The Court unanimously said that broad operational authority does not translate into authority to override the public's right to inspect records.

What the Court affirmed: The foundational principle of New Mexico public records law first articulated in 1977 and reaffirmed repeatedly since: the citizen's right to know is the rule. Secrecy is the exception. Every exception must be traceable to a specific legislative act — not to an agency's own judgment about what it would prefer to keep private.

The role of NMFOG: The New Mexico Foundation for Open Government filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the ACLU's position. The Court highlighted NMFOG's arguments in its ruling. NMFOG Executive Director Christine Barber, who also serves on the NM AG's IPRA Task Force, has been a leading voice in establishing that agency internal policies cannot be used to block public record access.

The authority to keep public records secret must come from the Legislature — not from the agency that holds the records. — ACLU of NM v. NM Corrections Dept., NM Supreme Court, June 15, 2026

Why Today's Ruling Lands Directly on Alamogordo — Eight Days Before Court

The City of Alamogordo has a pending transparency lawsuit, Case D-1215-CV-2022-00434, with a court hearing scheduled for June 23, 2026. That case involves alleged violations of the New Mexico Open Meetings Act. Today's Supreme Court ruling is the most immediately relevant legal development for that case since it was filed.

Here is why, point by point.

1. The city has repeatedly cited internal procedures to justify closed sessions.

Throughout 2025 and 2026, the Alamogordo City Commission entered executive sessions under NMSA 1978, §10-15-1(H)(2) and §10-15-1(H)(7) — citing "limited personnel matters" and "attorney-client privilege" related to threatened or pending litigation. Upon reconvening into open session after each closed meeting, commissioners repeatedly reported no actions taken and made no substantive disclosures to the public. The city's justifications for those closures relied heavily on internal procedural characterizations of what the sessions covered.

2. Today's ruling directly addresses that practice.

Under today's Supreme Court holding, the fact that city officials — or the city attorney — internally characterize a matter as privileged, confidential, or exempt is not enough. The exemption must be traceable to specific legislative authority. Open Meetings Act executive session provisions are narrow statutory exceptions. They authorize closure of specific types of deliberations. They do not authorize wholesale concealment of the factual substance of what was discussed, the records generated, or the reasoning behind decisions made in those sessions.

3. The EEOC settlement secrecy is now legally exposed.

On April 28, 2026, the Alamogordo City Commission voted 4-3 — following a closed executive session — to accept a financial settlement with Acting City Manager Dr. Stephanie J. Hernandez tied to an EEOC complaint she had filed. The terms of that settlement were never disclosed publicly. The commission refused to allow public comment on the matter before the vote. The settlement details were characterized internally as confidential.

Under today's ruling, calling something confidential internally does not make it legally exempt from public inspection under IPRA. Any resident or journalist who files an IPRA request for the settlement terms, the EEOC complaint, the city attorney's communications about the settlement that are factual rather than purely advisory, or the records underlying the commission's deliberations now has a significantly stronger legal footing to demand disclosure. The city cannot simply invoke its own characterization of those records as privileged to deny access.

4. The 7-0 reversal in 49 days was conducted entirely in secret — and those records are now challengeable.

On March 10, 2026, the commission voted unanimously 7-0 to begin formal contract negotiations with Dr. Hernandez for the permanent city manager role. Forty-nine days later, a bloc of four commissioners — Mayor Pro Tem Josh Rardin, Commissioner Stephen Burnett, Commissioner Robert Baxter Pattillo, and former Commissioner Al Hernandez — reversed that decision through a series of closed executive sessions. The public was told nothing substantive about what happened in those sessions or why the unanimous decision was reversed.

Past reporting by 2nd Life Media documented that Commissioner Rardin, when confronted about the potential cost of an EEOC settlement to remove Dr. Hernandez, responded to the effect of: "It's not my money." Prior reporting has also documented over $1 million in total taxpayer-funded settlements tied to conduct by Rardin, Burnett, and their allies. The records underlying those 49 days of closed deliberations — the factual basis for the reversal, any internal assessments, communications with city attorneys that were investigative or factual rather than purely legal — are now subject to challenge under today's ruling if the city attempts to shield them behind internal policy designations.

Case D-1215-CV-2022-00434 | Hearing: June 23, 2026 — Eight Days Away | Today's Supreme Court ruling changes the legal landscape for that hearing.

The Broader Principle: What This Means for Every IPRA Request in New Mexico

Today's ruling reaches far beyond NMCD. It establishes a clear, Supreme Court-level standard applicable to every government agency in New Mexico:

Step 1: Does a specific New Mexico statute passed by the Legislature explicitly authorize withholding this type of record?

Step 2: Was that authority implemented through a properly adopted rule or regulation — not just an internal policy memo or administrative designation?

Step 3: If the answer to either question is no, the catchall exemption does not apply — regardless of what the agency calls the record internally.

This matters enormously in practice. Across New Mexico, agencies routinely respond to IPRA requests by citing vague internal classifications — "confidential," "sensitive," "for official use only," "attorney work product" — without pointing to any specific statutory authority. Today's ruling eliminates that practice as a legally valid defense. If you cannot cite the statute, you cannot invoke the exemption.

The Court's ruling also reinforces what IPRA's statutory text has always said: the purpose of IPRA is to ensure that all persons are entitled to the "greatest possible information" regarding governmental affairs and the official acts of public officers and employees. NMSA 1978, §14-2-5. That purpose is not a suggestion. It is the declared public policy of New Mexico, and today's ruling gives it teeth.

What to Watch: June 23 and Beyond

June 23, 2026 — Case D-1215-CV-2022-00434: 2nd Life Media will be at the Twelfth Judicial District Court in Alamogordo for the hearing on the city's pending transparency lawsuit. Today's Supreme Court ruling will be a live legal backdrop for that proceeding. We will report on the arguments made, the records at issue, and the court's response.

Ongoing IPRA Requests: 2nd Life Media has been filing regular IPRA requests with the City of Alamogordo throughout 2026. We will continue doing so. Residents and advocates who wish to file their own requests can do so at the City Clerk's office, 1376 East Ninth Street, by email at ipra@ci.alamogordo.nm.us, or online at https://ci.alamogordo.nm.us/588/Public-Records-Request.

IPRA Task Force — October 1, 2026 Deadline: The NM Attorney General's IPRA Task Force, which includes NMFOG Executive Director Christine Barber, is due to submit its findings and proposed legislation to the Legislature by October 1, 2026. Today's ruling will undoubtedly shape those recommendations.

The NMFOG v. NMCD Injunction Lawsuit: NMFOG's separate suit against the Corrections Department seeking a court-ordered compliance injunction — filed in April 2025 — now moves forward with a unanimous Supreme Court ruling backing its core legal argument. That case is still pending in the First Judicial District Court in Santa Fe.

The Bottom Line

Seven years after a simple public records request. Two courts. One unanimous Supreme Court ruling. The answer is the same now as it was when the ACLU first asked in 2019:

The New Mexico Corrections Department had to hand over its use-of-force policy. It had to hand over its use-of-force records. The fact that it called those documents confidential — under its own internal authority — meant nothing. The Legislature did not authorize that secrecy. Therefore it had no legal force under IPRA.

That principle now applies to every government body in New Mexico. The City of Alamogordo. Alamogordo Municipal Schools. Every agency that has ever stamped a document "confidential" and used that stamp to deny a public records request.

The stamp is not the law. The Legislature writes the law. And until the Legislature explicitly authorizes keeping something secret — and the agency follows proper rulemaking procedures to implement that authority — the records belong to the public.

"The citizen's right to know is the rule. Secrecy is the exception." — New Mexico Supreme Court, reaffirmed June 15, 2026

Key Links & Resources

📄 NMFOG — Supreme Court Opinion PDF (filed June 15, 2026, 10:07 AM): https://www.nmfog.org/_files/ugd/4bad1c_688c2929941d4f8e814ae9ffaadf4f5f.pdf

📄 Court of Appeals Opinion — ACLU v. NMCD (May 31, 2024, FindLaw): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nm-court-of-appeals/116253859.html

📄 NM Supreme Court Oral Arguments Docket (confirms S-1-SC-40473): https://supremecourt.nmcourts.gov/about-this-court/recordings-of-oral-arguments/

📄 NM Supreme Court Official Opinions Page: https://supremecourt.nmcourts.gov/rules-forms-files/opinions/

🏛️ Alamogordo June 9 Agenda — Confirms June 23 Hearing: https://2ndlifemediaalamogordo.town.news/g/alamogordo-nm/n/378322/alamogordo-city-commission-regular-meeting-preview-june-9-2026-dr

🏛️ 4-3 Vote and Hernandez Ouster — Full Coverage (April 29, 2026): https://2ndlifemediaalamogordo.town.news/g/alamogordo-nm/n/375163/city-crisis-corruption-allegations-leadership-exodus-divided-commission

🏛️ Closed Executive Sessions — May 18, 2026: https://2ndlifemediaalamogordo.town.news/g/alamogordo-nm/n/376827/alamogordo-city-commission-held-another-closed-door-executive-session-city

🏛️ 2nd Life Media IPRA City Manager Search Coverage: https://2ndlifemediaalamogordo.town.news/g/alamogordo-nm/n/362524/alamogordos-prolonged-city-manager-search-fuels-transparency-push-2nd-life

🏛️ NMFOG v. NMCD Injunction Lawsuit (Source NM, April 2025): https://sourcenm.com/2025/04/01/new-mexico-transparency-group-sues-corrections-department/

📬 File an IPRA Request — City of Alamogordo: https://ci.alamogordo.nm.us/588/Public-Records-Request

📬 File an IPRA Request — NM Corrections Department: https://www.cd.nm.gov/divisions/administrative-support/office-of-general-counsel/ipra-notice/

ℹ️ NM Foundation for Open Government (NMFOG): https://nmfog.org

ℹ️ NM AG IPRA Task Force: https://nmdoj.gov/get-help/ipra-task-force/

ℹ️ Alamogordo City Commission CivicClerk Portal: https://alamogordonm.portal.civicclerk.com

2nd Life Media Alamogordo Town News is an independent local news outlet serving Alamogordo, Otero County, and the surrounding region. We cover local government, public safety, education, and community affairs with a commitment to transparency and accountability. We will be at the June 23 hearing. To submit IPRA tips, records, corrections, or story leads, visit 2ndlifemediaalamogordotownnews.com.

More News from Alamogordo
1
I'm interested
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive