Torrance County votes to extend ICE contract, potentially for last time – Patrick Lohmann, Source New Mexico
The Torrance County Commission approved its latest — and potentially last — month-long extension Thursday of a contract enabling U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold immigrants at the local jail.
The commission’s unanimous vote comes ahead of the May 20 effective date of House Bill 9, the Immigrant Safety Act, which prohibits public entities from contracting with ICE to detain immigrants. The New Mexico Legislature passed the bill in the 2026 legislative session.
Under the contract commissioners extended Thursday until April 30, ICE pays Torrance County more than $2 million for costs associated with housing detainees, funding the county then passes on to CoreCivic under what’s known as an “intergovernmental services agreement.”
But even after the agreement expires, county officials expect that operations at the jail, including detention of roughly 370 ICE detainees, will continue uninterrupted.
That’s because ICE has announced its intention to contract directly with private company CoreCivic, which owns the Torrance County Detention Facility.
ICE officials prefer to include government entities in detention contracts, because the federal agency generally faces fewer barriers, including procurement and competition requirements, than it would face in contracting directly with private companies.
Torrance County Manager Jordan Barela said Thursday county officials expect the federal agency and CoreCivic will ink a contract before the effective date of HB9.
“CoreCivic is in the process of negotiating a direct contract with ICE, which, if approved, would remove Torrance County as a partner to the contractual agreement for these services,” he told commissioners. “It is our understanding that those contract negotiations are ongoing and they would be in place within the next 30 days.”
Torrance County is one of three New Mexico counties with ICE detention contracts. Cibola County’s commission voted last week to begin the county’s withdrawal from its contract due to HB9. However, Cibola commissioners, in a letter to ICE and CoreCivic, raised the possibility of litigation that could arise soon that could halt the county’s exit from the contract.
That’s because Otero County, which owns the Otero County Processing Center facility, has extended its contract past the HB9 effective date in apparent defiance of the state law, an act that Cibola officials could result in litigation that affects Cibola’s contract.
The New Mexico Department of Justice has twice determined that the Otero County contract extension is illegal under two state laws, and Attorney General Raúl Torrez on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to order the county to stop its enforcement of the extended ICE contract.
NM Attorney General leads multi-state coalition in US Supreme Court pesticide, weedkiller case – Joshua Bowling, Source New Mexico
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez on Wednesday led a multi-state coalition asking U.S. Supreme Court justices to preserve several states’ abilities to seek restitution from pesticide manufacturers.
The New Mexico Department of Justice and attorneys general for 16 other states and Washington, D.C., filed a brief of support in the Missouri case Monsanto Co. v. Durnell. The case focuses on a dispute over whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act protects manufacturers like Monsanto from local lawsuits that accuse its products of causing cancer.
Torrez and the other AGs argue that members of Congress did not intend to do away with various state law protections when they signed the federal legislation nearly 80 years ago.
A Missouri gardener named John Durnell filed the suit against Monsanto in 2019 after receiving a non-Hodgkins lymphoma diagnosis. He alleged that Monsanto did not adequately disclose cancer risks associated with using the weed killer Roundup.
Monsanto’s parent company, Bayer, has long countered that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not list Roundup’s active ingredient as a known carcinogen and that it stands to reason that federal policies would take precedence over any state’s requirement to disclose cancer risks.
The AGs in Wednesday’s filing disagree.
“At stake in this case is whether state law will continue enabling people to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable in many cases,” Torrez said in a statement. “We are leading this coalition to ensure that federal law is not misused to shield corporations from accountability and to defend the ability of states to safeguard public health through private claims brought in state courts.”
A Missouri court ruled in Durnell’s favor and awarded him $1.25 million. Torrez and the other state AGs on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to uphold that decision.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals in a separate Pennsylvania case against Monsanto ruled that federal law overrode the state’s labeling requirements.
In petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court, Monsanto has argued that these two cases represent a “deepening split” that sorely needs clarity.
The company’s lawyers have also argued that varying labeling requirements across states would create a “crazy-quilt” of standards, Torrez wrote in the Supreme Court filing. He alleged that the characterization is “exaggerated,” though, and that obligations to warn of potential harms associated with a consumer product are “more or less the same across states.”
“Inconvenience to Monsanto is no reason to pre-empt state law where federal law allows considerable latitude,” Torrez wrote.
In an emailed statement to Source NM, a Monsanto spokesperson wrote that the federal law was meant to provide a “uniform, nationwide framework” and maintained that companies shouldn’t face penalties under state laws “for complying with federally approved and scientifically-based labeling determinations.”
“Allowing such claims to proceed invites a patchwork of state standards that conflict with the uniformity objective Congress prescribed in law and creates uncertainties that impede the development of new agricultural innovations,” the spokesperson wrote. “The security and affordability of the nation’s food supply depend on farmers’ and manufacturers’ ability to rely on the science-based judgments of federal regulators. Clarification from the Court is essential to restore uniformity, certainty, and the rule of law.”
Oral arguments are scheduled for April 27.
Texas House speaker stands firm on wishes to explore annexing southeast New Mexico - Natalie Robbins, Albuquerque Journal
Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows doubled down on his desire to explore the possibility of annexing parts of oil-rich southeast New Mexico, even after New Mexico officials told him it wasn’t up for grabs.
Burrows, a Republican, said in a statement that southeast New Mexico was more Lubbock than Santa Fe, anyway.
“Southeast New Mexico deserves a real voice in its own future, not one dictated by Santa Fe,” Burrows said. “It’s a conservative, energy-rich region with a fierce independent streak, and West Texas has shown what’s possible when you respect oil and gas, protect property rights, and trust local communities. This conversation is ultimately about culture, opportunity, and the right to choose a path that reflects the shared values of the Permian and Delaware basins. I look forward to this discussion in the new House select committee.”
Burrows released his list of legislative priorities last week, which include direction for lawmakers to “study the constitutional, statutory, fiscal and economic implications” of adding “one or more” contiguous counties of New Mexico to Texas.
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s office fired back, calling Burrows’ efforts a “ridiculous proposal.”
“We have every intention of keeping the great state of New Mexico fully intact,” communications director Michael Coleman said in a statement.
New Mexico’s own House Speaker Javier Martínez, D-Albuquerque, said in a statement that Burrows should “get offline, touch some grass, and get his own House in order.”
The plans follow an unsuccessful effort this legislative session from Lovington Republican Rep. Randall Pettigrew to allow New Mexico counties to be able to choose to secede from the state.
“The culture and the frustration from southeast New Mexico is real, and our voices need to be heard,” Pettigrew said.
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis joined in on the land grab antics on April Fool’s Day by proposing that the Centennial State help themselves to the northern part of New Mexico.
“The Santa Fe area will be a great addition to Colorado,” Polis said in a post on X. “It is no secret that Colorado and New Mexico are two of the best places to live, work and play, and we would be thrilled to welcome our friends in northern New Mexico to our great state and protect them from aggression from Texas.”
Texas probably couldn’t handle annexing the land anyway, he wrote.
“We can protect the rich culture, including the arts and restaurant scenes in these communities, while also mutually strengthening our economies and avoiding spreading Texas’ failed leadership any further. Not to mention the fact that this will mean more Pueblo chiles for all.”
New Mexico officials, tribes accuse feds of rushing efforts to reverse Chaco Canyon drilling ban - Danielle Prokop, Source New Mexico
New Mexico’s federal delegation and tribal officials on Wednesday accused the Trump administration of rushing the process to reverse a federal ban on oil and gas drilling around Chaco Culture National Historical Park by only allowing a week for limited public comment.
The Trump administration, for the last year, has floated a proposal to reverse a Biden-era order that issued a 20-year ban on oil and gas development on federal lands within 10 miles of the site, which holds paramount spiritual and cultural significance for numerous tribes and pueblos.
On Monday, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management posted an announcement seeking online public comment on the proposed reversal during a seven-day “scoping period” for an environmental review. The public comment period concludes on April 7, meaning it occurs during the Easter, Passover and several traditional holidays for Pueblos.
All five members of New Mexico’s all-Democratic congressional delegation, who reintroduced legislation last April to protect Chaco Canyon, on Wednesday released statements criticizing the efforts to reverse the protections and the shortened comment period.
“Chaco Canyon is a living cultural landscape that holds deep historical meaning and is a sacred space for many of our New Mexico Tribes,” U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich, who serves as ranking member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement. “It is not just one more place to drill. The disrespect shown by the Trump administration toward New Mexicans seems to know no bounds.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján said it was “inadequate and disgraceful” to allow seven days of public comment “on the fate of a 1,000-year-old sacred site.”
New Mexico Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard, who issued in 2023 a 20-year ban of oil and gas activity on more than 72,000 acres of state trust lands within 10 miles of Chaco, also called the Trump administration’s plan to reopen oil and gas development in the area a “disastrous plan” and urged more for adequate public comment.
“Giving only seven days for communities to respond, with no public meetings planned, is a slap in the face to the people who have called this place home long before there ever was a United States government,” Garcia Richard said.
Acoma Pueblo Gov. Charles Riley told Source NM the requirements to submit public comment through an online portal also presents a “substantial barrier” and called on the federal government to expand public comments to include mail or in-person comments.
“Too many of our community members and elders have inconsistent or unreliable internet access,” Riley said in a phone call. “This approach basically excludes voices that should be included.”
The All Pueblo Council of Governors said Wednesday the body was “dismayed” to learn of the federal effort to unwind the protections.
“Chaco Canyon will always be revered and respected as a sacred place by Pueblo people,” Chairman Joey Sanchez (Santa Ana) said in a statement. “We will use our collective voice to continue the fight.”
NM Supreme Court upholds judge’s decision to toss challenge to Duke Rodriguez gubernatorial campaign - Joshua Bowling, Source New Mexico
Justices on the New Mexico Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon unanimously upheld a District Court judge’s decision to dismiss a challenge to the legitimacy of former state cabinet secretary Duke Rodriguez’s Republican campaign for governor.
“This was the highest court in New Mexico and the decision was unanimous. Period. That should be the end of the conversation,” Rodriguez told Source NM. “It is done. Finished. Complete.”
The lawsuit, brought in February by Navajo Dam resident James Maes and former Republican Party of Bernalillo County Chair John Rockwell, argued that Rodriguez was not eligible to run for governor because he split his time between Arizona and New Mexico and did not renew his New Mexico voter registration until early last year. In court, Rodriguez has previously referred to himself as a “resident of Scottsdale, Arizona.”
Eleventh District Court Judge Curtis Gurley in February told Maes and Rockwell that he believed these disputes were best settled at the ballot box rather than in the court chambers. The duo subsequently appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
Days later, a Santa Fe judge struck down a similar suit that challenged Rodriguez’s legitimacy as a candidate.
Rodriguez, a cannabis CEO and former hospital executive, did not earn enough party support at the March Republican pre-primary convention to automatically qualify for the June 2 primary ballot. However, the New Mexico Secretary of State approved him for the ballot last week based on providing sufficient signatures. He is set to face off against Rio Rancho Mayor Gregg Hull and public relations professional Doug Turner for the Republican nomination.
“This was nothing more than an effort by operatives supporting two specific candidates to try to create confusion in voters’ minds,” Rodriguez said Wednesday. “There’s never been a moment that I doubted the outcome. Never.”
Rodriguez’s attorney, former state Sen. Jacob Candelaria, in a statement said the Supreme Court order reinforced his belief that “if you come for the Duke, you better not miss.”
New Mexico Department of Justice urges state Supreme Court to stop Otero County ICE contract - Patrick Lohmann, Source New Mexico
The New Mexico Department of Justice on Wednesday asked the state Supreme Court to intervene to prevent Otero County from maintaining a federal immigrant detention contract.
The Otero County Commission last week voted to extend its agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and private prisoner operator MTC to house roughly 900 immigrant detainees at the Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral.
The commission’s unanimous vote on March 25 occurred despite NMDOJ’s arguments that the commission was violating state law. In two separate letters deeming the contract illegal, the NMDOJ said the commission violated a state transparency law in extending the contract and also did not receive required approval from a state agency.
The commission’s vote occurred in defiance of House Bill 9, the Immigrant Safety Act, which the Legislature enacted earlier this year, and which goes into effect May 20. The bill prohibits public entities like counties from contracting with ICE for immigrant detention.
On Wednesday, the NMDOJ took its case to the Supreme Court, arguing that Otero County’s contract is illegal and that the court needs to immediately intervene and “prevent the execution of an invalid agreement.”
In a petition, Attorney General Raúl Torrez argued that New Mexico municipalities, including Otero County, lack the legal authority under state law to hold federal immigrant detainees who have not been charged or convicted of crimes.
Torrez also reiterated his agency’s contention that the Otero County contract is void because the county did not receive approval from the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration, which Torrez said state law requires for agreements between multiple local, state or federal government agencies.
Otero County Attorney RB Nichols did not immediately respond to Source NM’s request for comment Wednesday on the NMDOJ’s petition.
In public meetings, Nichols has disputed that the county violated the law in its continued extensions of the contract. The county commission recently approved the retention of outside counsel for potential litigation regarding its efforts to extend the ICE contract.
Nichols has warned that the Immigrant Safety Act will result in the county having to close its facility, which could result in the loss of 250 jobs and also make the county default on revenue bonds it purchased in 2007 to build the roughly $68 million facility.
Two other New Mexico counties, Torrance and Cibola, contract with ICE to house immigrant detainees. Both of them are getting close to exiting their agreements involving ICE and private prison owner CoreCivic, though ICE has announced that going forward it intends to contract directly with CoreCivic at those facilities.
In a statement Wednesday, Torrez said the Supreme Court petition is necessary because, “The rule of law requires that all public bodies follow clearly established legal requirements, without exception. Otero County did not obtain the approval state law requires, and the agreement is invalid. We are asking the Court to act swiftly to prevent its enforcement.”