NEWS
June 23, 2026
NMFOG files public records lawsuit against Doña Ana County
NMFOG sent a letter to Doña Ana County Commission on Nov. 14, 2025, notifying them that they had illegally closed a meeting two months earlier to discuss Project Jupiter, a $165 billion data center being built in the county.
But when NMFOG asked the county to release all communications it received complaining of the OMA violation, they said they had none.
Additionally, when NMFOG asked for emails about the construction of Project Jupiter, the county said they could not release them because they are “tactical response plans […] that could be used to facilitate the planning or execution of a terrorist attack.”
The requested emails are not “tactical response plans,” and the county’s response that it had “no responsive records” for NMFOG’s request for communications about the OMA violation is untrue.
​
June 15, 2026
New Mexico Supreme Court rules that internal agency policies do not exempt records from inspection
The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled today that government agencies cannot deny public inspection of records under IPRA's "catchall exemption" based on an agency's internal policies alone.
The Justices unanimously agreed with the plaintiff, ACLU, and amicus curiae, New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, that the New Mexico Corrections Department's policies designating use-of-force records as confidential do not have the force of law under to keep public records secret under IPRA's “as otherwise provided by law," exception.
The case began when the ACLU of New Mexico requested records about the use of force against inmates in state prison. The Corrections Department refused, arguing that its internal policies labeled the records as confidential.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that argument.
The Court highlighted NMFOG's arguments in the case in its ruling that an agency's internal policies are not enough to block access to public records.
If the government wants to keep records secret, that authority must come from the Legislature and be adopted through proper rulemaking procedures. The Court reaffirmed its prior ruling that under IPRA, "the citizen's right to know is the rule and secrecy is the exception."
June 1, 2026
UPDATE: Las Cruces city council moves to repeal select committee ordinance
The Las Cruces City Council agreed to repeal the ordinance that allowed for the creation of a secret committee.
The decision came following a letter we sent on May 28, 2026 regarding the Public Safety Select Committee, which operated from 2020 through 2023. Our investigation found the committee broke open meetings law in multiple ways, including by stopping the city council from discussing law enforcement policy and instead requiring those discussions to take place in the committee, which was closed to the public.
In our letter, we recommended that the city repeal the ordinance that allowed the committee to be created. Known as the Select Committee Ordinance, it has several problems.
First, it allows the mayor to create a private committee for their own purpose. The city council, which is notified afterward, must just accept this.
Second, the public isn’t notified when a select committee is formed. Instead, information about a committee will be "made available" if someone requests it.
Lastly, and most troubling, the ordinance specifically states that select committee members do not have to follow the city's Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct requires officials to act with integrity, reject bribes, and "never knowingly deceive the public." Yet members of select committees were exempt from it. Why? We have no idea.
By agreeing to repeal it, the Las Cruces City Council has taken an important step toward rebuilding public trust and a more transparent government.
We welcome the change and applaud their decision.
May 28, 2026
Letter to Las Cruces regarding open meeting violations
Did they operate a secret committee about law enforcement for three years?
For three years, a Las Cruces committee met behind closed doors and made decisions the public knew nothing about.
That's the conclusion of our investigation into the city's Public Safety Select Committee, which operated from 2020–2023. Its members included former Mayor Ken Miyagishima, who is now running for governor, and current U.S. Representative Gabriel Vasquez.
Those are serious allegations, and we backed them up in a seven-page letter sent to the city on Friday.
But you don't need to read seven pages.
Just watch the video.
Under New Mexico law, meetings where public policy is discussed or voted on must be open to the public. At an April 3, 2023 City Council meeting, Mayor Miyagishima repeatedly states that the Public Safety Select Committee — whose meetings were not open to the public — had to approve a citizen police review committee before the City Council could even discuss it.
​
May 28, 2026
Big transparency win for New Mexico
Today, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that just because a public record contains someone’s opinion about an employee, it does not mean the entire record can be withheld from the public.
The case began in 2014, when Albuquerque Public Schools launched an investigation into its superintendent, who later resigned and received a $350,000 buyout. When the Albuquerque Journal and KOB-TV requested the investigator’s report, APS refused to release it. The news organizations sued.
Twelve years later, the state Supreme Court ruled not only that APS was wrong to withhold the report, but also reversed decisions by the Second Judicial District Court and the Court of Appeals, writing: “Exempting an entire record because it may contain trace matters of opinion would invite abuse.”