Robert C. Brack

In this case, environmental groups challenged the Bureau of Land Management's approval of two 2008 oil and gas lease sales in New Mexico, alleging that the agency failed to adequately consider climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and related environmental impacts under the Administrative Procedure Act, NEPA, FLPMA, and the Mineral Leasing Act. The court dismissed all claims after determining that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The decision rested on the conclusion that the groups' member declarations failed to establish the required elements of constitutional standing: a concrete and particularized injury in fact traceable to the specific leases at issue, with redressability through a favorable ruling. Declarations described general environmental concerns or impacts from unrelated oil and gas activities rather than direct harm from the challenged BLM actions.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the validity of a federal regulation, 42 C.F.R. § 418.309(b)(1), used by the Department of Health and Human Services to calculate the annual statutory cap on Medicare reimbursements to hospice care providers under 42 U.S.C. § 1395f(i)(2). Hospice of New Mexico challenged the regulation as inconsistent with the statute after facing repayment demands for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, arguing it failed to properly reduce the count of beneficiaries to reflect care provided across multiple years. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, holding the regulation invalid because it counted each beneficiary only in a single year rather than prorating based on the proportion of hospice care actually furnished in the relevant accounting year as required by statute. It denied the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment takings claim, enjoined further enforcement or use of the regulation against the plaintiff, and ordered HHS to recalculate the caps and return any overpayments.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a Wal-Mart assistant manager who sued her employer under Title VII, alleging that the company created a hostile work environment by placing a former store manager who had sexually harassed her into an assistant manager role at her new store, and that this placement was also retaliation for her prior discrimination charge. The district court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim after finding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact regarding the claim and that Wal-Mart could not establish the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the retaliation claim. The decision applied the summary judgment standard by viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and assessing whether reasonable inferences supported the plaintiff's allegations.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved plaintiff Elsa Anchondo suing debt collector Anderson, Crenshaw & Associates for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after the defendant left a voicemail message on her answering machine that failed to identify the caller or disclose that it was an attempt to collect a debt. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c), arguing that the message was not a qualifying "communication" under the statute, and raising constitutional challenges to the FDCPA on vagueness and First Amendment grounds. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief and that whether the voicemail pertained to a debt presented a genuine issue of material fact that could not be resolved at the pleading stage. The court further concluded that the constitutional arguments were not ripe because they depended on a threshold factual determination that the message was a debt-related communication.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Qwest Corporation, a telecommunications provider, and the Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID), a quasi-municipal entity managing irrigation facilities in New Mexico, over EBID's authority to charge fees for Qwest's placement of facilities that cross or run parallel to EBID ditches and canals. Qwest sought summary judgment, arguing that the fees violate federal law under 47 U.S.C. § 253 by creating barriers to telecommunications entry, while EBID moved to exclude expert testimony or extend discovery deadlines. The court denied EBID's motion in limine and discovery extension, and also denied Qwest's summary judgment motion. The core reasoning was that numerous material issues of fact remained unresolved regarding the nature of EBID's fees, its status as a political subdivision, the reasonableness of the charges, and their potential prohibitive effects on telecommunications services.

business & regulatoryfederal powerenvironmentproperty

This case involved a dispute over the distribution of benefits from two ERISA-governed retirement savings plans after the death of Leonard C. Begay, Sr. in 2004. The plaintiff, claiming to be Mr. Begay's surviving spouse, alleged that the plan administrators improperly paid the benefits to his children from a prior marriage instead of her. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motions to affirm the administrative decisions. The court reasoned that, based on the administrative record available at the time, which indicated Mr. Begay was divorced and had designated his children as beneficiaries, the administrators' determination that the plaintiff was not the surviving spouse was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, and thus not arbitrary and capricious under ERISA.

labor & employmentfamily law

This case involved a defendant charged with illegal reentry of a removed alien under federal law, where the key dispute was whether his prior Colorado conviction for fifth-degree felony menacing qualified as a "crime of violence" under US Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2, potentially triggering a 16-level sentence enhancement. The court determined that the conviction did not qualify under either the categorical approach or the modified categorical approach. The core reasoning examined the statutory elements of the Colorado menacing offense, which do not categorically require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person, and found that the available record documents, including the complaint and plea agreement, failed to establish the requisite facts under the modified approach.

immigrationcriminal law

This case involves federal criminal charges against defendants Larry Lujan, Kacey Lamunyon, and Eugenio Medina for kidnapping resulting in death and tampering with a witness resulting in death under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201 and 1512, with the government seeking the death penalty against Lujan based on special findings in the indictment. The opinion resolves a series of pretrial motions, primarily from Lujan and joined by co-defendants, requesting disclosures such as exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland, DNA evidence details, information on informants and government witnesses, Jencks Act materials, and specifics regarding the decision to pursue capital punishment. The court outlines relevant discovery law, including Brady obligations, Rule 16, and limits on work-product protections, then grants or denies the requests in whole or part according to standards of materiality, relevance, and government duties without requiring an open-file policy. Severance of Lujan's trial was previously ordered, with trial dates set accordingly.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved three co-defendants charged in federal court with kidnapping resulting in death and tampering with a witness resulting in death, stemming from the alleged killing of Dana Joe Grauke II; one defendant faced the death penalty while the others did not. Two non-capital defendants moved to sever their trials from each other and from the capital defendant, citing potential Bruton violations from co-defendant statements, prejudice from a death-qualified jury, and spillover from evidence of other crimes. The court granted severance of the capital defendant's trial from the others but denied severance between the two non-capital defendants. It reasoned that the statements could be adequately redacted and accompanied by limiting instructions to avoid confrontation clause problems, that joint trials of non-capital defendants promote efficiency and are preferred under Rule 8(b), and that Supreme Court precedent forecloses claims of inherent bias in death-qualified juries or prejudice from other evidence when limiting instructions are given.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Priscilla Billsie alleged that defendant attorney Thomas R. Brooksbank violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by wrongfully garnishing her wages to collect on a 1998 default judgment against Priscilla A. Yazzie, including by listing her social security number on garnishment documents and refusing to return the funds despite her claim that she was not the debtor. The defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing primarily that any FDCPA claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations or excused as a bona fide error. The court construed the motion as one for summary judgment, granted the plaintiff leave to file a surreply, and denied the motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the plaintiff's identity as the debtor and the timing and nature of the defendant's collection activities, while noting that the FDCPA is generally treated as a strict-liability statute evaluated under the least-sophisticated-consumer standard.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a 2003 collision at a New Mexico railroad crossing in which a southbound Amtrak train struck an SUV driven by a minor, killing both the driver and a passenger. The families sued the railroad and Amtrak, alleging negligence in train speed, whistle operation, crew training, lookout, event-recorder integrity, and crossing conditions. The district court granted in part and denied in part motions to strike expert affidavits, holding some opinions inadmissible while reserving a Daubert ruling on others. On summary judgment, the court held that federal law preempted claims concerning train speed, whistle adequacy, crew training, and event recorders, and it granted judgment for defendants on punitive damages, the driver's negligence per se, and the crew's failure to maintain a proper lookout; it denied summary judgment on whether the whistle was properly sounded and left the crossing-condition claim for further proceedings.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by a Las Cruces resident and taxpayer to the display of three Latin crosses on public school maintenance vehicles and a permanent mural inside an elementary school, alleging violations of the Establishment Clause. After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the court entered judgment for the defendants. The court concluded that the name "Las Cruces" is widely understood locally to mean "the crosses," that the symbols reflect the community's historical and cultural identity rather than religious endorsement, and that the displays therefore satisfied Establishment Clause requirements.

religious libertycivil rights

The case involves a challenge by plaintiff Paul Weinbaum against Las Cruces Public Schools regarding the display of symbols featuring three Latin crosses on school maintenance vehicles, a sculpture at the sports complex, and a related school policy, claiming violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the claims concerning the sculpture and Policy #424 as written, finding that the city's name, meaning "the crosses," and the context satisfied constitutional requirements. However, the court denied summary judgment on the plaintiff's remaining claims due to an inadequately developed record and also denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

religious libertycivil rights

This case involved a constitutional challenge by Las Cruces residents to the city's official symbol depicting three crosses within a sunburst, which appeared on public property and documents; plaintiffs argued that the symbol endorsed Christianity and thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court granted the city's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion, dismissing the claims. It held that the symbol is permissible because the name "Las Cruces" historically means "the crosses," referring to secular local landmarks such as cemeteries and roadside markers rather than religious promotion. The court found the symbol had a primarily secular purpose and effect tied to the city's identity and history, without fostering government entanglement with religion.

religious libertycivil rights

This case involved a petitioner seeking to quash a grand jury subpoena that required him to provide a saliva sample for DNA testing in an investigation into a possible violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513. The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted the motion to quash. The court reasoned that compelling a saliva sample constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, which generally requires a warrant based on probable cause, and no exceptions applied in this context since the petitioner was incarcerated and the grand jury could obtain a warrant without significant hindrance. The decision emphasized that grand jury subpoenas are not exempt from Fourth Amendment protections for bodily intrusions under these circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Perez-Nunez, the defendant was convicted of illegal reentry after deportation following a prior conviction and objected to a 16-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 for his earlier Colorado misdemeanor assault conviction, which would have resulted in a Guidelines range of 57-71 months. The court rejected arguments that the prior conviction was not a felony or crime of violence under the Guidelines but agreed that the Guidelines are advisory post-United States v. Booker. Applying the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court determined that the enhancement overstated the seriousness of the prior offense and sentenced Perez-Nunez to 24 months imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release.

immigrationcriminal law

The case involved owners of an inholding property in the Sandia Mountain Wilderness who held a title insurance policy from the defendant that covered, among other things, lack of a right of access to the land. After filing suit against the United States to establish a vehicular right of way and then selling the property, the plaintiffs sued the insurer for breach of contract, bad faith, and related statutory violations when coverage was denied. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the policy's government regulation exclusion applied, the plaintiffs had never applied for a special use permit so access had not been denied, and the title remained marketable because the property was sold at a profit with existing pedestrian access. The remaining claims failed due to the absence of coverage under the policy.

propertybusiness & regulatoryfederal powerenvironment

The case involved a motion to suppress evidence filed by defendant Olivares-Rangel, who was charged with being an illegal alien in the United States after Border Patrol agents stopped and arrested him in a trailer park. The court granted the motion, finding that the agents had blocked the defendant's truck without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, based on uncorroborated information from an informant. The core reasoning was that the stop was unconstitutional, and therefore all evidence obtained from it—including the defendant's identity, fingerprints, and related immigration and criminal records—must be suppressed as fruit of the illegal detention under precedents like Davis v. Mississippi and United States v. Guevara-Martinez.

criminal lawprocedureimmigrationcivil rights