Huffman & Monagle, LLC 2026-05-15T07:55:24Z https://www.hwm.law/feed/atom/ WordPress /wp-content/uploads/sites/1204437/2024/07/cropped-HMHW-logo-mark-512px-2-32x32.png by Huffman & Monagle, LLC https://www.hwm.law/?p=46730 2025-09-16T12:00:31Z 2025-01-23T17:09:04Z

Johnson v. Bd. of Educ. for Albuquerque Pub. Schs., S-1-SC-39961 (2025), the New Mexico Supreme Court has held that public schools are “public accommodations” for purposes of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, and that students in public schools are entitled to the protections that the NMHRA provides against discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other protected classes listed in the statute. In reaching its holding, the Court utilized a “plain-meaning” interpretive approach to the statutory language of the NMHRA, relying on Black’s Law Dictionary definitions of terms like “institution,” “school,” and “college” to show that public schools are “establishments that provide or offer their services to the public” – the definition of a “public accommodation” under the NMHRA. In reaching its holding, the Court also overruled a contrary holding in Human Rights Commission of New Mexico v. Board of Regents of University of New Mexico College of Nursing, 1981-NMSC-026, 624 P.2d 518, noting that the Regents decision relied on an unduly narrow reading of the NMHRA and took a blinkered approach to the statute’s anti-discriminatory purposes. In noting the relative dearth of remedial venues for students facing discrimination in public school settings, the Court stated that a continued adherence to the Regents rule “would continue to perpetuate historic inequities.” Johnson at ¶ 24. In concluding its opinion, the Court stated that “[f]inding that educational institutions are public accommodations under the NMHRA would be the most logical way to provide a remedy for discrimination by educational institutions, because no remedy is otherwise expressly provided in New Mexico.” Id. at ¶ 28. In an era where atavistic forces seek to reinvigorate a culture of discrimination in public accommodations, the New Mexico Supreme Court has provided a powerful remedial bulwark to our state’s students – and a powerful rebuke to those who would attack our state’s students for the offense of being who they are.]]> On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC https://www.hwm.law/?p=46650 2025-11-13T08:12:26Z 2024-05-22T06:00:00Z

A New Jurisprudence of Constitutional Duty: Moving Beyond DeShaney Through the NMCRA]]> On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC https://www.hwm.law/?p=46647 2025-11-13T08:41:51Z 2024-04-30T06:00:00Z

Albuquerque, New Mexico – Sandra Lente, the personal representative of the estate of her daughter April Peterson, represented by Huffman & Monagle, LLC, has filed a lawsuit against the Board of CountyCommissioners for the County of Bernalillo. The lawsuit alleges severe negligence and violation of civil rights that led to the tragic and preventable death of Ms. Peterson in the early morning hours of June 21, 2023. Ms. Peterson, who was detained at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) for approximately 26 hours, died under questionable circumstances that have raised serious concerns regarding the operations and monitoring protocols at the facility. The complaint highlights that Ms. Peterson was placed in a detoxification pod within the facility to be monitored for withdrawal symptoms but was found unresponsive after a series of policy violations by a corrections officer. Allegations include this officer’s inappropriate use of internet resources and failure to perform required welfare checks, all during his shift when Ms. Peterson needed critical oversight. “We are seeing a disturbing pattern of MDC corrections officers watching YouTube and playing video games instead of watching the people in their custody,” an attorney forMs. Peterson’s estate. “These are human beings, and many of them are in a medically precarious state. Failing to keep a close eye on these individuals when they are detoxing is inexcusable.” The lawsuit claims breaches of duty by the detention center’s staff, specifically pointing to the neglect in performing mandatory welfare checks and properly monitoring the inmates. Moreover, the lawsuit details the improper actions and inactions leading up to Ms. Peterson’s death, including the failure to utilize life-saving measures such as Narcan and a functional Automated External Defibrillator (AED), potentially contributing to her untimely demise. It further accuses the facility of negligence in controlling the inflow of illegal substances and maintaining essential life-saving medical equipment. “Ms. Peterson’s death is one of many detox/overdose deaths at MDC in recent years,” said Levi Monagle, another attorney for the Estate. “All indications are that inmates are obtaining drugs within the facility, and are overdosing out of desperation to soothe agonizing withdrawal symptoms. It is an incredibly tragic situation.” The lawsuit seeks justice and accountability for the loss of Ms. Peterson, emphasizing the urgent need for systemic changes within the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center to ensure the safety and rights of all individuals in custody. The legal action aims not only to address the specific failures in April Peterson’s case but also to prompt an overhaul of policies and practices to prevent future tragedies. The family and legal team request that the community respect their privacy during this challenging time and will provide updates as the case progresses. View the official complaint here. For further context or comment, please contact: Levi Monagle – [nap_phone id="LOCAL-CT-NUMBER-1"]]]> On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC https://www.hwm.law/?p=46644 2024-08-26T03:52:18Z 2024-04-17T06:00:00Z

Albuquerque, New Mexico – Seven members of the APD Academy training staff – Steve Martinez, Tillery Stahr, Lisa Neil, Shane Treadaway, Alix Emrich, James Jacoby, and Kelsey Lueckenhoff – have filed a lawsuit inthe Second Judicial District Court, alleging violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act in the form of retaliation motivated by nepotism. The lawsuit originates from a series of events at the APD Academy in August 2023, when the seven plaintiffs reported a “Class One Violation” of “Lying/Dishonesty” by a cadet named JoshuaVega – the son of APD Commander George Vega. Plaintiffs’ allegations were investigated and substantiated by APD internal affairs investigators, and Academy Commander Joe Viers subsequently made the decision to terminate Cadet Vega from the Academy on August 17, 2023. The decision to terminate Cadet Vega was abruptly reversed on August 18, 2023, following unusual intervention from APD Deputy Chief Michael Smathers. The lawsuit alleges that this reversal was set in motion following a call between Commander Viers and Commander Vega on the evening of August 17, 2023. On August 18, 2023, Cadet Vega was reinstated to the Academy, and the plaintiffs were removed without explanation from their tested positions at the Academy. “Our clients’ logical deduction is that Commander Viers was pressured by the APD chain of command to reverse his disciplinary decision,” said Levi Monagle, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “They cannot think of another terminated cadet receiving direct intervention from a Deputy Chief, but they also cannot think of another instance where a terminated cadet was the son of an APD Commander.”Following their removal from the Academy, the plaintiffs sent a letter to APD Chief of Police Harold Medina on August 24, 2024. The letter (which is attached as an exhibit to the lawsuit) detailed the plaintiffs’ serious concerns with the special treatment of Cadet Vega, and expressed additional concerns that the lack of an experienced staff would compromise the training of an entire cadet class. “The August 24 letter characterizes the handling of Cadet Vega’s misconduct as an ‘abuse of authority,” Monagle said. “Our clients did their jobs. They reported misconduct by the son of an APD commander, and they were punished for it. These sorts of situations severely erode the confidence of rank-and-file law enforcement in their chain of command, and deserve special scrutiny and criticism.” According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs received no response to their letter to Chief Medina – but were subsequently subjected to a lengthy third-party investigation for “hazing.” The lawsuit alleges that no evidence of “hazing” was discovered through this investigation, but notes that the findings of the investigation have been withheld by the City of Albuquerque. “The City should release its investigative report to the public,” said Monagle. “Our clients have nothing to hide – the concern is that APD has something to hide, and the release of the report would quell those concerns.” View the official complaint here. For further context or comment, please contact: Levi A. Monagle – [nap_phone id="LOCAL-CT-NUMBER-1"]]]> On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC https://www.hwm.law/?p=46649 2025-09-18T14:22:53Z 2024-03-18T06:00:00Z

linguistic abomination. State v. Smith, 1947-NMSC-048, ¶¶ 7-8, 51 N.M. 328, 184 P.2d 301. While the opinion went on to acknowledge that the use of “and/or” could at times be appropriate in complaints, responsive pleadings, and discovery, it was unequivocal in its condemnation of the term’s use in jury instructions. New Mexico practitioners would do well to heed the Court’s reminder in this regard.]]> On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC https://www.hwm.law/?p=46653 2024-08-26T03:52:27Z 2024-03-18T06:00:00Z

here.]]> On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC https://www.hwm.law/?p=46652 2024-08-26T03:52:31Z 2024-03-05T07:00:00Z

The Supreme Court has effectively replaced a very high bar for allowing insurrectionists into federal office — a supermajority vote by Congress — with the lowest bar imaginable: congressional inaction. Passing controversial, politically charged legislation is not exactly Congress’s strong suit these days; and while one is tempted to believe that the Court is so cloistered as to be oblivious to this fact, that cannot realistically be the case. What we have, then, is a decision which by its spinelessness subtly invites additional insurrectionist behavior from other federal officeholders. Unless or until a broken Congress unbreaks itself and passes some sort of No-Insurrection-and-We-Really-Mean-It Act, the holders of and candidates for federal office have one less disincentive to engaging in flagrantly insurrectionist conduct (e.g. invading the U.S. Capitol and attacking U.S. security forces, or coordinating such efforts from afar). This is not a good message to send to anyone in an era where insurrections and/or attempts to interfere with the peaceful transition of executive power have recently become a very real concern. Levi Monagle]]> On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC https://www.hwm.law/?p=46646 2025-11-11T05:10:58Z 2024-02-20T07:00:00Z

On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC https://www.hwm.law/?p=46643 2024-08-26T03:52:42Z 2024-01-24T07:00:00Z

here. The effort to protect the Colorado ballot from insurrectionist influence was spearheaded by a brave group of Colorado Republicans represented by an excellent team of attorneys from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Attorneys Shayne Huffman and Levi Monagle from Hall Monagle Huffman & Wallace proudly participated in this effort by through the filing of an amicus brief on behalf of Colorado Common Cause and former Colorado Secretary of State Mary Estill Buchanan. The Common Cause amicus brief may be found here. The COSC opinion affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of Colorado District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace issued several weeks earlier. In the estimation of Judge Wallace, Mr. Trump had “engaged in insurrection” against the Constitution of the United States, but was not properly an “officer of the United States” within the meaning of the Disqualification Clause, and could not be removed from the primary ballot on those grounds. Following a meticulously detailed and well-reasoned historical and legal analysis, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the holding that Mr. Trump had engaged in insurrection against the Constitution of the United States, but reversed the holding that he was not an “officer of the United States” within the meaning of the Disqualification Clause. As such, the Court order the Colorado Secretary of State to remove Mr. Trump’s name from the presidential primary ballot. The Court’s decision is one of historic importance, and will almost certainly be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The battle to preserve the constitutional rule of law continues.]]> On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC https://www.hwm.law/?p=46645 2024-08-26T03:52:47Z 2023-10-19T06:00:00Z