1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Opinion N um ber: 3 F ili ng D at e: A pr il 14, 201 6 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 4613 5 PHI LLI P G. RAMIREZ , JR., 6 Plaintiff-P etitioner, 7 v
. 8 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO C HILDREN, YO UTH 9 AND FAMILI ES DEPARTMENT , DORIAN DODSO N, 10 in her in di vid ua l an d of fi ci al c ap ac it ie s, R ON WE ST , in h is 11 in di vi dua l a nd o ffi ci al ca pa ci tie s, BARBARA AUTEN, 12 in her individual and of ficial capacities, RO GER GILLES PIE, 13 in h is i nd ivi du al a nd of fi ci al c ap ac it ie s, TE D LO V A TO , in h is 14 in di vid ua l an d of

fi ci al c ap ac it ie s, TI M HO LE SI N GE R , in h is 15 in di vid ua l an d of

fi ci al c ap ac it ie s, D A N IE L B ER G, in h is i nd ivi du al 16 an d o ffi ci al ca pa ci tie s, 17 Defen da nt s- Res po nd en ts , 18 an d 19 NEW MEX ICO A TTOR NEYGEN ERA L’S OFF ICE, 20 Intervenor.
21 ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NG ON CERTI ORARI 22 C am ill e M ar ti ne z- Ol gu in , D ist ri ctJu dg e1 Lore nz Law

2 A lic e T om lin son L or en z 3 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 4 for Pe tition er
5 Hin kl e Sh an or , LLP 6 Ellen S. Casey 7 Jacly n M. Mc Le an 8 L or enS
. F oy 9 fo r Re spon de nt
10 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 11 Robert D avid Pederson, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 12 Phillip Patrick Baca , A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 13 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 14 fo r In te rv en or
15 Serr a & G arrity , P C 16 D iane M. G ar

ri ty 17 San ta Fe, NM 18 Re se rv e O ff

ic er s A sso ci at ion 19 Sam ue l F
. Wri ght 20 W as hi ng to n, DC 21 Law Offic e o f Tho m as G. Jarr ard , PLLC 22 Thom as G. Jarrard 2 3 Sp o k an e, WA 24 Ro be rt M it ch el l At to rn ey at Law, PLLC 25 Ro be rt

W
. Mi tc he ll1 Sp o k an e, WA

2 for A m icus Curiae Re serve O ffice rs A ssociation of A m erica
3 Of fice of the U. S. Attorney 4 Dam on P. Martinez, U. S. Attorney 5 Manuel Luce ro, A ssistant U. S. Attorney 6 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 7 D ep ar tm en t of Jus tic e Ci vil Ri ght s D ivi sio n 8 Nathaniel S. P ollock 9 W as hi ng to n, DC 10 for A m icus Curiae U nited States
11 Garci a Iv es Nowar a, LLC 12 Ge orge L. Bach 13 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 14 for A m icus Curiae A m erican Civil Liberties U nion of N ewMexico1 OPIN ION

2 NA KAM UR

A, Justice. 3 { 1} W e are called to decide whether a New Mexico National Guard m em ber m ay 4 assert a c laim

against the State as emp l o yer under the U niform ed Ser vices 5 E m plo ym en t and R ee m

plo ym en t R igh ts A ct of 1994 (U SE RR A ), 38 U
. S. C. §§ 4 301- 6 4335 ( 2012 ). Ph ill ip Ram ir ez , a m em be r of the N ewMe xic o A rm

y N at ion al G uard , 7 w as e m

plo y ed by the N ewMe xic o C hil dr en , You th an d Fa m ili es D ep ar tm en t 8 (C Y FD ). I n Ju ly

200 5, Ram ir ez w as or de re d to f ed er al a ct ive duty

a nd d ep loy ed

to 9 Ir aq . A ft er

Ram ir ez r et

ur ne d to w ork inN ewMe xico , CY FD te rm inate d hi s 10 em ploym ent. Ram irez sued CY FD , a sserting a USE RRAclaim . Aj ury found that 11 CYF D took adverse em ploym ent acti o n s ag ainst Ram irez bec ause of his m ilitary 12 se rv ic e an d aw ar de d hi m m one tary

dam ag es . T he Co urt of

Appe al s r ev ersed the 13 da m ag es a w ar d, c oncl ud ing that C Y FD a s an arm of the S ta te w as im

m une to 14 Ram ire z’s USERRA c l a i m . Ram irez v. State ex rel. Children, Yo uth & Fam ilies 15 De p’t , 20 14 -NMCA- 05 7, ¶¶ 1, 27 , 32 6 P .3d47 4, cert. gran ted , 201 4- N MC E RT -0 05. 16 W e disagree. By

enacting NMS A 1978 , Section 20-4-7.1(B) (2004), the L egislature 17 specifically

extended “ [t] he rights, benefits and protections” of USE RRAto m em bers 18 of the N ew Me xic o N at ion al G uard w ho ar e or de re d to fe de ra l or state a ct ive duty f or 19 a pe ri od o f thi rty

or m or e co nse cu tiv e day s. I n so doi ng, the L eg isl at ur e co nse nte d to2

1 sui ts b ro ught

a ga ins t st at e em

plo y er s w ho v iol at e the pr ote ct ion s gu ar an te ed by 2 U SE RRA
. A cc or din gly , w e re ve rs e an d r ei nst at e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t and 3 da m ag es a w ar d. 4 I. BACKGRO UND 5 A. USERRA 6 { 2} Co ngr es s e na ct ed U SE RR A to en co ur ag e nonc ar ee r m ili tary se rv ic e, to 7 m ini m iz e dis ru

pti ons in the li ve s and c om m uni ti es of

tho se w ho s er

ve in the 8 uni fo rm ed

se rv ic es , a nd “ to p ro hib it dis cr im inatio n a ga ins t pe rs ons be ca use of the ir 9 service in the uniform ed services. ” 38 U. S. C. § 430 1(a)( 1)-(3). Co n g ress cre ated 10 U SE RR

A pur suant t o it s W ar

P ow er s se t f

orth i n Art ic le I, Se ct ion8, Cl au se 11 o f 11 the U nit ed

S ta te s C onst itu tio n. B ed

ros sia n v. Nw

. M

em ’l H osp. , 409 F
. 3d 8 40, 843 -4 4 12 & n
. 2 ( 7thCi r. 200 5)
. I n pe rt ine nt p ar t, U SE RR

A pr ovi de s: 13 A per son who is a m em ber o f, applies to be a m em ber o f, perform s, has 14 perform ed, a

pplies to perf

o rm, o r has an obligation to perform service 15 in a

uni fo rm ed

se rvic e sha ll not

be de nie d in iti al e m

plo ym en t, 16 re em

plo ym en t, r et en tio n ine m plo y m en t, pr om oti on, or

a ny ben ef

it of 17 em

pl oym en t by

a n e m plo y er on the ba sis of

that m em

be rs hip , 1 8 ap p l i c a t i o n f

o r m e m b e r s h i p , p e r f

o rm a n c e o f s e rv i c e , ap p l i c a t ion f or 19 se rv ic e, or

obl igatio n. 20 38 U. S. C. § 43 1 1 (a). US ERRA’ s antidis crim ination rights applyto states as 21 em pl oyers. See 38 U
. S. C. § 4303 (4 )( A )( iii ) (d ef ini ng the te rm

“ em plo y er ” to i nc lud e3

1 “ a St at e” ). T o e nf

or ce the se guarante es , U SE RR A c re at es a pr ivate ri ght of a ct ionf or 2 qualified service m embers to re cover m onetary dam ages against a state as an 3 em ploy er. 38 U. S. C. § 432 3(a)( 3), ( d)(1)(B )-( C). 4 { 3} Co ngr es s or igi na lly c onf er re d j ur isd ic tio n onthe f

ed er al dis tr ic t c ourts t o 5 ad j udi cate U SE RR

A a ct ion s br ough t by pr ivate ind ivi dua ls a ga ins t st at e em plo y er s. 6 U nif orm ed S er vic es E m plo ym en t a

n d R e em plo ym en t R igh ts A ct

of 199 4, P ub. L
. N o. 7 103- 353, 108 S ta t. 314 9, 316 5 ( 1994 ) (p ro vid ing that “ [i ] n th e ca se of a n act ion 8 ag ai nst aS ta te a s an e m

plo y er , the appr opr ia te dis tr ic t c ourt is the c ourt f or a ny 9 dis tr ic t in w hic h the St at e ex er ci se s an y au tho ri ty ”) (c ur re nt ve rs ion at 38 U
. S. C. § 1 0 4 3 2 3 ( b ) ). I n Se mino le T rib e of F lor ida v . F

lor ida , how ever, the Suprem e Court 11 rej ected Congress’ s authority under the powers granted by Article I of the Un ited 12 States Constituti on to a b ro g at e a state’ s sovereign imm unityand subject 1 3 no n c o n s e n t i n g s t a t e s t o s u i ti n f e d e r a l c o u rt . 5 1 7 U
. S
. 4 4 , 7 2 ( 1 9 9 6 )
. B e c ause 14 Co ngr es s e na ct ed

U SE RR A pur suant t o it s W ar

P ow er s gr an te d by A rt ic le I, S ec tio n 15 8, Sem i n o le Tribe ca st d oubt on the f

ed er al c ourts’ j ur isd ic tio n to a dj udi cate 16 USERRA act io ns form on et ary da mages ag ai ns t s ta te s as em pl oyers. Se e, e . g. , 17 Palm atier v. M

ich. D ep’t of State Police , 981 F. Su pp. 529, 532 (W
. D
. Mi ch
. 199 7) 18 (dism issin g a U SE RRAclaim against the Michigan entities for lack of j urisdictio n).4

1 { 4} I n 19 98, Co ngr es s am en de d U SE RR A ’ s j ur isd ic tio na l pr ovi sio n c onc er nin g 2 cl ai m s a ga ins t st at e em plo y er s to pr ovi de that “ [i ] n th e cas e of a n a ct iona ga ins t a 3 St at e (a s an e m

plo y er ) by

ape rs on, the a ct ionm ay be br ough t i n aS ta te co urt of 4 c o mp e t e n tj u r i s d i c t i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e . ” V e t e r a n s P r o g r a ms 5 E nhanc em en t A ct

of 199 8, P ub. L
. N o. 105 -3 68, § 21 1( a) , 112 St at . 331 5, 332 9 6 (1 998) ( co dif

ie d a s am en de d a t 38 U
. S. C. § 43 23( b) (2 ))
. W iththi s am en dm en t, 7 Co ngr es s so ught

to ch an ne l pr ivate U SE RR A c la im s a ga ins t st at e em plo y er s to state 8 c o u rts . See 38 U
. S. C. § 4323 (b )( 2)
. G ive n thi s ba ck gr ound , Ram ir ez as se rt ed a 9 U SE RR

A c la im a ga ins t C Y FD in N ewMe xic o di str ic t c ourt. 10 B . R a mi r e z ’ s US E RR A c l a i m 11 { 5} Ram ir ez j oin ed the N ewMe xic o N at ion al G uard on Augus t 22 , 199 1 . On 12 April 9, 1997 , C YF D hire d him as a surveillance officer
. In Novem ber 2005, Ram irez 13 wa s deploy ed to Iraq where he led a platoon charged with providin g security escort 14 to s uppl y

c onvo y s. A ft er

his se rv ic e in I ra q, Ram ir ez w as tr an sf er re d to K uwait, 15 w he re on M ay

13, 200 6, he w as pr om ote d to S er ge an t Fir st C la ss. Ram irez r eturned 16 to Gall up in Nov em

be r 20 06
. 17 { 6} Ram ir ez r es um ed e m plo ym en t w ithCY FD on J anuary 2, 200 7 un de r the 18 supe rv isi on o f D an ie l Be rg a nd T im H ole sin ge r. W ith in a

f ewm onths o f his r et

ur n,5

1 Ram irez ’s relations hip with his su pervisors deteriorated. Berg and H olesing er 2 al le ge dly

hara sse d and r ep ri m an de d R am ir ez f or bein g insubo rd inate . O n M ay 8, 3 20 08 , CYFD ter m in at edhi s emplo ym en t. 4 { 7} On May

19, 2008, Ram irez f

iled a law suit in the Ele venth Ju dicial District 5 Court against C YF D, the form er secretary of CYF D, Holesinger, Berg, and others at 6 CY FD w ho supe rv ise d Ram ir ez , al le gin g a U SE RR A c la im f or m one tary

r el ie f an d 7 o t h ercl ai m s ar i s i n g u n d erfe d er al an ds t at e l aw . CY FD m o v ed t o d i s m i s s Ra m i re z’s 8 U S E R RA c l a i m o n g r o u n d s th a t , a s as t a t e a g e n c y, i tw a s i mmu n e t o U S E R RA c l a i ms 9 br ough t by

pr ivate ind ivi dua ls. T he r ec or d in di cat es that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t 1 0 s p ec i fi ca l l y ru l e o n th atm o t i o n an dco m m en ce da ju ry t ri al o n , in t er al i a, Ra m i re z’s 1 1 U S E R RA c l a i m. D ur ing tr ia l, CY FD m ove d f or adir ec te d ve rd ic t w ithr es pe ct to the 1 2 U S E R RA c l a i m. Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d en i ed t h at m o t i o n . Th e ju ry fo u n dth at Ra m i re z’s 13 m ili tary

se rv ic e w as am oti va tin g f ac tor f or the adve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ion s take n by 14 CY FD an d re tur

ne d a ver dic t in his fa vor , aw ar din g him $36 , 000 in d am ag es f

or los t 15 earn ing s. The district court enter ed the j udgm ent and award in favor of Ram irez. 16 { 8} CYFD app eal ed , an d th e Co ur t o f App eal s re ve rs ed
. Ram irez , 20 14 -NMCA17 057, ¶ 1. I n adiv ide d o pi ni on, the Co urt of Appe al s he ld tha t C Y FD , a s astate 18 ag en cy, w a s i mm

un e to Ram ire z’s USERRA cl ai m . Se e id

. T he Co urt of Appe al s6

1 de te rm ine d th at

the L eg isl at

ur e ha d no t w ai ve d N ewMe xic o’ s so ve re ignim m uni ty 2 with respect to Ram irez’ s USE RRAclaim because th e Le gislature had not spoken 3 w ith“ the r equis ite spe ci fi ci ty r equir ed to de te rm ine
. . . [ an ] int en [t ion ] to w ai ve the 4 State’ s constitu tional sovereign im m unity to private US ERRA suits for dam ages.” Id

. 5 ¶ 19. T he Court of Appeals also held th at CY FD wa s im m une to Ram irez’ s USE RRA 6 claim because, in the absence o f a state’ s consent to suit, Congress lacks the power 7 to ab ro ga te a st at e’s so ve rei gn imm un it y when act in g p ur su an t t o i ts W ar Po wers . Id

. 8 ¶¶ 17- 18. 9 { 9} W e granted Ram irez’ s petition for a writ of c ertiorar i to consid er whether N ew 10 Me xic o is im

m une to pr ivate U SE RR

A s uit s f or dam ag es , e xe rc isi ng o ur appe llate 11 j ur isd ic tio n pr ovi de d by A rt ic le V I, S ec tio n 3 o f the N ewMe xic o C onst itu ti on and 12 NMS A 1978, Se ction 34 -5-14(B) ( 1972 ). W e also granted the New M ex ico Of fice 13 of the A tto rn ey G en er al ’ s m oti on to inte rv en e and al low ed am ic us c ur ia e br ie fs f ro m 14 the United States, the Reserve Of ficer s Association of Am erica , and t h e A m er i can 15 Ci vil L ibe rt ie s U nio n of N ewMe xic o. 16 II. DISC US SION 17 A . St at e sove re ign im m un it y sh ou ld b e de te rm in ed at t he ou ts etof li ti gat ion 18 { 10} The procedural histo ry of Ram irez’ s US ERRA claim in the dist rict court gives7

1 us p au se . I n it s m oti on t o dis m iss , CY FD ar gue d that the U SE RR A c la im sho uld be 2 dis m iss ed

f or la ck of sub ject m atte r j ur isd ic tio n be ca use CY FD w as im

m une f ro m 3 sui t. CY FD re que ste d a heari ng on that m oti on, a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld a he ar ing 4 on February

9, 2010. A t the hearing, the district court announced it wou l d issu e a 5 wr itten ruling . T he rec ord, howe ver, contains no indication tha t the d istrict court ruled 6 on CYFD’s m ot io n, an d C YFD m ai nt ai ns th atth e d is tri ctco ur t d idno t s o ru le
. 7 { 11} Whe n th e St at e m ove s to dis m iss a pla int if f’ s cl ai m by ra isi ng the a ff irm at ive 8 de fe nse of

sov er ei gn i m

m uni ty inv oki ng the la ck

of sub j ec t m at te r j ur isd ic tio n, the 9 di st ric t co u r t m

us t ru le on th atm ot io n b efo re al lo win g t he cla im to pro ceed
. See 10 G onza les v . Sur

gid ev Co rp. , 199 5- N MS C-0 36 , ¶ 12, 120 N
. M. 133 , 899 P
. 2d 5 76 11 (“ Su bj ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n is [ a co urt’ s] pow er to ad j udi cate the ge ne ra l qu es tio ns 12 inv olv ed

in the c la im
. ”). Thi s is a m atte r of both pr inc ipl e an d pr ac tic e. F ir st, 13 so ve rei gn imm

un it y pr ot ect s th e St at e no t on ly fro m li ab il it y bu t al so fro m su it
. F ed

. 14 M ar. Co m m ’n v . S. C. Sta te P ort s A uth

. , 535 U
. S. 743 , 7 66 (2 00 2)
. Co urts m ay not 15 al lowa pla int if

f to im pose on the S ta te the e xpe nse of li tig at ing ac la im

to w hic h it 16 is imm

un e. Se e id. a t 76 5 ( “ [S ] ta te sov er ei gn i m m uni ty se rv es the im

portant f unc tio n 17 of sh ie ld in g s ta te tre as ur ie s an d t hu s p res erv in g t he [st at e’s] abi li ty to g ov ern .” 18 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted)). Sec ond, if th e State properly invok es8

1 its sov er ei gn i m

m uni ty to a pe nd ing c la im , “ an y [ ru lin g] r eg ar din g th at

c la im is 2 advisory

to the extent that it addresses iss ues other th an im m unity .” Se e R usk

Sta te 3 Hosp. v . B lack , 392 S. W .3d 88, 95 ( Te x. 2012). A nd “ [w ] e avoid rendering adviso ry 4 opin ions.” Ci tyof

La s C ruc es v . E l Paso E le c. Co

. , 1998-NMS C-006, ¶ 18, 124 N. M. 5 640, 954 P. 2d 72. T hir d, as a m atte r of j udi ci al a dm ini str at ion , if the S ta te r ai se s th e 6 defense of sovereign im m unityto a claim , that i s sue shou ld be decided well befor e 7 th e cl ai m

go es to a jury—no t af

te r a jury h as ren de reda ve rd ic t. See G onza les , 199 5- 8 N MS C- 036, ¶

12. 9 { 12} In this case, we conclude that the Legi s l at u re consented to p rivate U SE RRA 10 ac tio ns f

or dam ag es . H en ce , the ri sks as soc ia te d w ithnot de ci din g astate sov er ei gn 11 im m uni ty de fe nse at the out se t di d no t m at er ia liz e. N ev er the le ss, w e re ite rate that the 12 de fe nse of

state sov er ei gn im

m uni ty shou ld be ad

j udi cate d at the out se t of l iti ga tio n, 13 ins te ad

of pe rm itt ing the iss ue to be de ci de d a ft er the e xpe nse of

tr ia l. 14 B. US ERR

A and state sovereign im m unity 15 1. Stand ard of re view 16 { 13} W e re vie wde nov o w he the r N ewMe xic o is im m une in its ow n c ourts t o a 17 cl ai m forda m ag es ari si ng un de r fed eral law. See M anni ng v. M

ining & Minerals Div. 18 of Energy, Minerals & Nat. R es. D ep’t , 200 6- N MS C- 027, ¶ 9, 140 N
. M. 528 , 1449

1 P. 3d 8 7. F urthe r, w he the r the L eg isl at ur e w ai ve d N ewMe xic o’ s so ve re ignim m uni ty 2 w ithr es pe ct

to U SE RR

A c la im s f

ile d by pr ivate ind ivi dua ls in sta te co urt is an is sue 3 of st atut ory in te rp ret at io n t ha t i s al so su bjec t t o d e n ov o re vi ew. M oongate W

ate r C o. 4 v. City of Las Cruces , 201 3- N MS C- 018, ¶ 6, 302 P
. 3d 4 05. 5 2. State sovereign im m unity and congressional legisla tion enact ed u nder the 6 War P owers C lau se 7 { 14} As f

ram ed by the parties, this case principally concerns w hether the W ar 8 Po w er s C lause gr an ts Con gr es s the pow er to a br oga te astate ’ s so ve re ignim m uni ty 9 to s u i t i n i t s o w n c o u rt s . T o e n f o r c e t h e r i g h t s f

u rn i s h e d t o p r i v a t e i n d i vidua ls b y 10 U SE RR

A a ga ins t st at e em

plo y er s, Co ngr es s subj ec ts the state s to pr ivate a ct ion s f or 11 m on ey da m ag es in th ei r own co ur ts . See 38 U
. S. C. § 4323 (b )( 2)
. T he part ie s di sput e 12 w he the r thi s st at

uto ry pr ovi sio n is be y ond Co ngr es s’ s po w er to en ac t. 13 { 15} T his c as e co nc ern s N ewMe xic o’ s so ve re ignim m uni ty to fe de ra l c au se s of 1 4 ac t i o n f

o r m o n e t a ry d am a g e s i n i t s o w n c o u rt s
— a n i m m u n i t y t h a t d e r i v e s f

r o m the 15 fed eral Co ns ti tu ti on . See A lde n v . M ain e , 527 U. S. 706 , 732 -3 3 ( 1999 ) (“ A lth ough 16 the sovereign i mm

u nity of the States der ives at least in part fr om the com m on-law 17 tr ad iti on, the str

uc tur e an d hi sto ry

of the Co nst itu tio n m ak e cl ear tha t the im m uni ty 18 ex ists tod ay

by constitu tional desig n.”) ; Co ck re ll v. B d. of R eg en ts o

f N

. M

. Sta te10

1 Univ. , 200 2- N MS C- 009, ¶ ¶ 4-8, 132 N
. M. 156 , 45 P
. 3d 8 76 ( dis cu ssi ng A lde n at 2 le ngth)
. N ewMe xic o’ s im m uni ty to sui t fo r da m ag es is a fundam en ta l a spe ct of it s 3 sovereigntyan d is held byvirtue of its “ adm issio n into the Union upon an equal 4 footing with the other State s.” Alden , 527 U
. S. a t 71 3. 5 { 16} Beca

use NewMexico’ s sovereign imm unityis ground ed in the federa l 6 Constitu tion, it exists only wher e the states’ sovereign im m unity wa s not relinqu ished 7 either “by

the plan of the Conventio n or certa in constitu tional Am endm ents.” Id

. ; see 8 als o T he F ed er al ist

N o. 81 ( H am ilt on) ( “ It

is inh er en t i n th e na tur e of sov er ei gnty

not 9 to b e am en ab le to the sui t of a n in div idu al wi th ou t i ts co ns en t. . . . Unless, therefore , 10 the re is a sur

re nde r of thi s im m uni ty in the plan of the c onve nti on, it w ill r em ai n w ith 11 the S ta te s . . . . ”) ( em

pha sis a dde d)
. F or

e xa m ple , “ [i ] n r at if

y ing the Co nst itu tio n, the 12 St at es co ns en te d t o s ui ts bro ug ht by oth er St at es or b y th e Fed eral Gov ern m en t.” 13 Alden , 527 U
. S. at

754 ( ci tin g Principality of Monaco v. Sta te of M iss
. , 292 U
. S. 313 , 14 328-29 (1934) (collecting cases)). 15 { 17} I n Alden , the S upr em e Co urt a ddr es se d th e iss ue of state sov erei gn ty at the 16 Co nst itu tio na l C onve nti on and s peci fi ca lly e xa m ine d w he the r an y

pr ovi sio n of 17 A rt ic le I gr an ts C ongr es s th e pow er to subj ec t no nconse nti ng s ta te s to pr ivate sui ts 18 fo r da m ag es in th ei r own co ur ts . See 527 U.S . at 730-31 . T he Su p rem e Court11

1 determ i n ed that Congress onl y has such a power “ if there is ‘ com pelling evidence’ 2 that the S ta te s w er e re qui re d to sur re nde r thi s po w er

to Co ngr es s purs uant t o th e 3 co nstitu tional desig n.” Id

. a t 73 0- 31 ( quot ing B l a t c h f o rd v . N a t i v e V i l l

. o f No ata k , 4 501 U
. S. 775 , 781 (1 991) ). A ft er a na ly zi ng the “ his tor

y , pr ac tic e, pr ec ed en t, a nd the 5 str uc tur e of the Co nst itu tio n, ” the S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t “ the S tates r et ai n 6 im m unityfrom

private suit in th eir ow n courts, an im m unityb e y on d the congression al 7 power to abrogate by

Ar ticle I legislation.” Id

. a t 75 4. 8 { 18} In Ce ntral V

irg ini a C om m uni tyCo lle

ge v . Ka tz , 546 U
. S. 35 6 (2006) , the 9 Suprem e Court retre ated from the broad hold ings o f Seminole Tribe an d Alden that 10 nothin g inA rt ic le I e m pow er s C ongr es s to sub

j ec t a state to sui t by

apr ivate party

f or 11 m on et ary rel ie f wit ho ut it s co ns en t. Ka tz c onc lud ed

a ft er loo kin g to the his tor

y of the 12 Bankruptcy

Clause, U. S. Const. art I, § 8, cl. 4 , and bank ruptcy legislation considered 13 an d ena ct ed in the w ak e of the Co nst itu tio n’ s ra tif ic at ion that the Bankr

upt cy Cl au se 14 en ab le s C ongr es s to ab ro ga te state sov er ei gn i m m uni ty in bankr upt cy pr oc ee din gs. 15 See 546 U.S. a t 377 (“ T he ine luc ta ble c onc lus ion , the n, is that S ta te s a gr ee d inthe 16 plan of the Co nve nti on not to as se rt an y sove re ign im m uni ty de fe nse the y m igh t have 1 7 h a d i n p ro ce ed i n g s b ro u g h tp u rs u an tt o ‘Law s o n t h e s ub je ct o f B an kru p t ci es .’” 18 (q uo ti ng U.S. Con st . artI, § 8 , cl. 4 )). K atz , t herefor e, applied the fram ew ork12

1 ar tic ulate d in A lde n to c onc lud e that Co ngr es s’ s pow er unde r the Bankr upt cy Cl au se 2 in cl ud es a li m it edpo wer t o abr og at e st at e so ve rei gn imm un it y . Se e id. In so doing, 3 Ka tz opened the do or to argum ents that c onsti tutio nal histo ry and structure show that 4 Co ngr es s, by

a ct ing pu rs uant t o othe r A rt ic le I pow er s, m ay sub j ec t the state s to 5 pr ivate sui ts a

bse nt the ir

c onse nt. 6 { 19} E nc our ag ed

by the S upr em e Co urt’ s ho ldi ng i n Ka tz , R a m i r e z , the N ew 7 Mexico Of

fice of the Attorney Ge neral (as an intervenor), and the United States ( as 8 an am icus c uriae) argue that Congress’ s W ar Powe rs include the power t o s u b ject 9 st a t e s t o pr i vat e s ui t s f or m on e t a ry

r e l i e f w i t ho ut the i r c on se nt . T he y

m a i nt a i n t hat 10 thi s pu ta tiv e pow er

sounds in the plan of

the Co nve nti on. 11 { 20} W e decline to decide w hether, pursuant to the constitu tional structu re outlined 1 2 at th e C o n v en t i o n an dra t i fi ed th er ea ft er , t h e s t at es i m p l i ci t l y co n s en te dt o Co n g re s s ’s 13 au tho ri ty

und er it s W ar P ow er s to ove rr ide the ir sove re ign im m uni ty . T he r es olu tio n 14 of that constitu tional qu estion is unnecessary to the dispo sition of this case; theref ore, 15 we do no t ad dr es s i t. See A llen v. LeM aster , 2012-NMS C-001, ¶ 28, 267 P. 3d 80 6 (“ It 16 is an e ndur ing pr inc ipl e o f c o n s t i t ut ion al j ur isp ru de nc e that c ourts w ill a voi d de ci din g 17 co nst itu tio na l ques ti on s unle ss r equir ed to do s o. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and 18 citation om itted)). Instead, w e address whether the Ne w Mexico Le gislature waived13

1 N ewMe xic o’ s so ve re ignim m uni ty to pr ivate sui ts s ee kin g m one tary r el ie f fo r a state 2 em pl oyer’s all eg edvi ol at io n o f a ri gh t g ua ran te edby U SERRA. 3 3. De term ining w aiver of state sovereign im m unity 4 { 21} N ewMe xic o’ s pr ivi le ge to as se rt it s so ve re ignim

m uni ty in its ow n c ourts 5 “ doe s no t c onf

er upo n th e St at e a co nc om itant ri ght to dis re gard the Co nst itu tio n or 6 valid federal law .” Alden , 527 U
. S. a t 75 4- 55. S ove re ignim m uni ty doe s no t bar al l 7 j udi ci al r ev ie wof

state c om

pli an ce w ithf

ed er al lawin N ewMe xic o c ourts . F or 8 instance, a private indiv idual m ay bring a federal cause of action seeking prosp ective, 9 in jun ct iv e rel ie f ag ai ns t a s ta te off ic er. See G ill

v . P ub. E m ps. R et
. B d. of

P ub. E m ps. 10 Ret. As s’ n o

f N.M. , 200 4- N MS C- 016, ¶ ¶ 1, 28, 135 N
. M. 472 , 90 P
. 3d 4 91 ( ap ply ing 11 the doctrine of E

x part e Young , 209 U
. S. 123 ( 1908 ), to private sui ts a ga ins t st at e 12 officials). 13 { 22} Fu rth erm or e, th e Leg is la tu re m ay co ns en t t o s ui ts ag ai ns t t he Sta te . See 14 Co ck re ll , 200 2-NMS C-009, ¶ 13 (“ [I] t is within the sole province of the Legislature 15 to w ai ve the S ta te ’ s c onst itu tio na l so ve re ignim m uni ty . ”)
. “ T he r igo rs of

sov er ei gn 16 im m unityare thus ‘m itigated bya sense of j ustice which has continua l l y expanded 17 by consent the suabilit y of the sovereign.’ ” Alden , 527 U
. S. a t 75 5 ( quot ing Great N. 18 Li fe I ns. Co

. v . R ea d , 322 U. S. 47, 53 (1944))
. Th e Le g i s l ature m ay wa ive New14

1 Mex ic o’s s ov erei gn imm un it y wit h re sp ectto cau se s o f act io n t ha t i t cr eat es . Se e, e . g. , 2 N MS A 197 8, § 14 -2 -1 2 (1 993) ( pr ovi din g f or e nf or ce m en t, inc lud ing the a w ar d of 3 m onetary

dam ages, f

or a cla im arising und er the I nspection of Public Rec ords Act); 4 N MS A 197 8, § 28 -1 -1 3( D ) (2 005) ( pr ovi din g f or the St at e’ s m one tary

li ab ili ty f or 5 injury to a person under the Hum an Rights Act). The Le gislature m ay also waive N ew 6 Me xic o’ s im

m uni ty to fe de ra l c au se s of

a ct ionthat C ongr es s c re at es thr ou gh the 7 ex erci se of i ts Arti cl e I p owe rs . Se e Co ck re ll , 200 2- N MS C- 009, ¶

13. 8 { 23} T his c as e tur

ns o n whe the r the L eg isl at ur e w ai ve d the St at e’ s im

m uni ty to sui t 9 by e n a c t i n g S e c t i o n 2 0
- 4
- 7
. 1 ( B ) , w h i c h ap p l i e s t h e r i g h t s c r e a t e d b y U S E RRA to 10 qua lif y ing m em

be rs of the N ewMe xic o N at ion al G uard
. Co ckrel l gui de s th e 11 re sol uti on o f thi s qu es tio n. I n Co ck re ll , thi s C ourt s ta te d “ that any w ai ve r of

the 12 St at e’ s c onst itu tio na l so ve re ignim m uni ty m ust be c le ar an d un am

big uous . ” 2002
- 13 N MS C- 009, ¶

24. T he re , w e spe ci fi ca lly c onsi dered w he the r N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 1 4 3 7
- 1
- 2 3 ( A ) ( 1 9 7 6 ) w a i v e dth e S t a t e ’s s o v e r e i g n i mmu n i t y i n a c t i o n s f o r o v e rt i me 15 wag es as se rt ed

und er the F ai r L ab or

S tandard s A ct

of 193 8 ( FL SA ), 29 U
. S. C. §§ 16 20 1- 21 9 (2 01 2)
. Co ck re ll , 200 2- NMSC -009, ¶ ¶ 16- 24. S ec tio n 37 -1 -2 3( A ) gr an ts 17 im m uni ty to gove rn m en ta l e nti tie s “ fr om a ct ion s ba se d onc ontra ct , e xc ep t a ct ion s 18 ba se d onava lid

w ri tte n c ontra ct . ” T his Co urt c onc luded th at th is s ta tut e did not15

1 clear ly and unam

bigu ously indicate the Le gislature’ s intent to m ake st at e e n t i ties 2 am en ab le to su it s ass ert in g FLSA cl ai m s i n s ta te co ur ts . Co ck re ll , 200 2- N MS C- 009, 3 ¶ 2 4 . We a cc o rd i n g l y h e l d t h a t “Se ct i o n 3 7 -1 -2 3 d o es n o twa i v e t h e S t at e’s 4 constitu tional so vereign im m unity .” Co ck

re ll , 200 2- N MS C- 009, ¶

22. 5 { 24} W e first look to the text of a statute to determ ine whether the Le g i s l at u re ’s 6 w ai ve r of

im m uni ty is cl ear and un am

big uous . F or

e xa m ple , in Co ck

re ll w e fi rs t 7 ad dr es se d w he the r the te xt o f Sec ti on 37- 1- 23( A ) ind ic at ed a n e xpr es s w ai ve r of 8 im m unity . 2002-NMS C-009, ¶ 18. This Cou rt d eterm ined that an FL SAclaim , which 9 is p ur el y

statut or y , is not “ ba se d onava lid

w ri tte n c ontra ct ” w ith in the m eanin g of 10 Se ct ion37- 1- 23( A ), e ve n w he re the re i s a va lid c ontra ct f or e m plo ym en t 11 in co rp or at in g t he pro te ct io ns of t he FLSA. Co ck re ll , 2 00 2- N MS C- 009, ¶ 18. 12 A cc or din gly , thi s C ourt c onc lud ed that “ Se ct ion 37- 1- 23 doe s no t pr ovi de a n e xpr es s 13 wa iver of im

m unityfor .
. . F LS A c laim [s] .” Co ck re ll , 200 2- N MS C- 009, ¶

18. 14 { 25} W ith respect to a text ual indication of waiver, we clarify that the Legislature 15 is n ot r equir ed

to em pl oyc er ta in m ag ic w or ds o r a spe ci fi c fo rm ula ic r ec ita l t o 16 ex pr es s its int en tio n to co nse nt to sui t in state co urt. I n Lu boy es kiv . H ill , f or exam ple, 17 thi s C ourt c onc lud ed

that the S ta te waiv ed its im m uni ty to pr ivate sui ts b ro ught

to 18 en fo rc e the N ew Me xic o H um an Ri ght s A ct unde r its pr ovi sio n th at “ ‘ the state sha ll16

1 be li ab le the sam e as a pr ivate pe rs on. ’ ” 1994 -N MS C- 032, ¶ 14, 117 N
. M. 380 , 872 2 P. 2d 35 3 (quotin g Section 28-1-13(D) ( 1987 )). Other j urisdictio ns have also declined 3 to ad op t a m ag ic -wo rd s te st to di sc ern a wai ve r of st at e so ve rei gn imm

un it y . Se e, e . g. , 4 W ic hita Fal ls S

tat e H osp. v . T ay lor , 106 S. W
. 3d 692, 697 (T ex . 2003 ) (“ [W ] e do n ot 5 in si st th atth e st atut e [wai vi ng so ve rei gn imm un it y ] be a m od el of p erfe ctcla rit y .” 6 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed )) ; Kl oni s v . St at e, D ep ’t

of R ev en ue , 7 766 So
. 2d 1186, 1189 (F la
. D ist
. Ct
. App. 2000 ) (“ A lth ough a w ai ve r of sov er ei gn 8 im m uni ty by ale gis la tive en ac tm en t m ust be c le ar , spe ci fi c, a nd une qui voc al , no 9 pa rt i c u l a r m a g i c w o r d s a r e r e qu i r e d
. ” )
. L i k e t h e s e c o u rt s , w e d o n o t f a vora ny 10 part ic ular langua ge by w hic h th e L eg isl at

ur e m ay r en de r the S ta te a m en ab le to sui t 11 in it s o wn co ur ts . 12 { 26} T his Co urt m ay a lso dis ce rn a cl ear an d unam big uous w ai ve r by

e xa m ini ng the 13 pur pose of astatut e. T he c le ar

a nd una m

big uous standard

does no t co nf

ine our 14 statut or y anal y sis to the te xt a lon e. F or e xa m ple , in Co ck

re ll , a fter co nsi de ri ng 15 whether Section 37-1-23(A) e xpressly wa ived imm

unity , t h i s Court addressed 16 w he the r the statut e “ im pli ci tly e vid en ce [d ] ale gis la tiv e int en t t o w ai ve im m unity 17 fro m FLSA cl ai m s.” 2 00 2- NMSC -0 09 , ¶ 19
. Co ck re ll “ re co gni ze d that the pur pose 18 of the le gis la tiv e en ac tm en t c ont ai nin g Se ct ion 37- 1- 23 wa s to rei nst at e the sov er ei gn17

1 i mm u n i t y w h i c h h a d b e e n ab o l i s h e db y H ic ks v . Sta te , s ub

ject t o c ert ai n e xc ep ti on s.” 2 Co ck re ll , 200 2- NMSC -0 09 , ¶ 22 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d). T his 3 Co urt de te rm ined that the pur pose of the li m ite d w ai ve r of

im m uni ty e xpr es se d in 4 Se ct ion37- 1- 23( A ) w as to en co ur ag e part ie s w ho co ntr ac t w ithstate e nti tie s to do s o 5 in wri tin g inor de r to e nsur e cl ear te rm s an d to v er if y that the “ gove rn m en ta l e nti ty 6 is authorized to enter into [the] contract. ” Co ck re ll , 200 2- N MS C- 009, ¶

22 ( al te ratio n 7 in or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)
. Co ck re ll concluded th at 8 the pur pose s of S ec tio n 37 -1 -2 3( A ) did

not sup port m ak ing state en ti ti es a m en ab le 9 to su it in st at e co ur ts for al le ge d v io la ti on s o f th e FLSA. Se e Co ck re ll , 2002-NMS C10 009, ¶ ¶ 21- 22. 11 { 27} W e cl ar if

y that the m ethod tha t this Co urt e m plo y s to de te rm ine w he the r the 12 L eg isl at

ur e w ai ved N ewMe xic o’ s im m uni ty to sui t i n it s own c ourts i s no t the 13 m ethod em

plo y ed by the f ed er al c ourts t o di sc ern a w ai ve r of state sov er ei gn 14 im m uni ty to sui t i n f

ed er al c ourt. Whil e the f ed er al c ourts m ay

he sit at e to look 15 be y on d t he st atut ory

tex t t o d is cern a st at e’s co ns en t t o s ui t i n th e fed eral co ur ts , see, 16 e. g. , E

de lm an v. J

orda n , 415 U
. S. 65 1, 67 3 ( 1973 ), in Co ck re ll , this Court 17 ap pr opr ia te ly

e xa m ine d bo th th e te xt and the pur pose of astatut e to d et er

m ine the 18 L eg isl at

ur e’ s in te nt t o c onse nt t o su it in i ts o w n c ourt . 2002- N MS C- 009, ¶ ¶ 21- 22.18

1 The f ederal c ourts’ determ ination of w aivers of sovereign im m unityto suit in feder al 2 co urt is guid ed by

feder alism

concerns that do not b ear upon this Co u rt ’s 3 de te rm in at io n o f th e Leg is la tu re’s co ns en t t o s ui t i n t he co ur ts of Ne w Mex ic o. See 4 P en nhur

st Stat e Sc h. & H

osp. v . H ald erm an , 46 5 U.S . 89 , 99 -1 0 0 (1 9 8 4 ) (“ A S t at e’s 5 c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i n t e r e s t i n i mm u n i t y e n c o mp a s s e s n o tmer e l y whether it m ay be sue d, 6 but wh er e it m ay be sued.
. . . [ B] ec au se of the pr obl em s of

f ed er al ism inh er en t i n 7 m ak ing one sov er ei gn a ppe ar ag ai nst its w ill in the co urts of the oth er , ar es tr ic tio n 8 uponthe e xe rc ise of

the f ed er al ju di ci al pow er

ha s lo ng b ee n c onsi de re d to be 9 appropriate. .
. .” (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted)). Unlike the fe deral 10 co urts, w he n th is Co ur t in ter pr et s astatut e to d et er

m ine the L eg isl at

ur e’ s in te nt t o 11 w ai ve sov er ei gn im

m uni ty , w e ar e co nc er

ne d w ith the St at e’ s am en ab ili ty to sui t i n 12 its ow n co urts. T hus, a s in Co ck re ll , thi s Court wi ll ex am ine both st at uto ry te xt and 13 p urpose to determ ine whether the Le gislature clearly intended to wa ive the Stat e’s 14 sove re ignim

m uni ty to a fe de ra l c au se of

a ct ionin its ow n c ourts. 15 { 28} W e also m ake clear that any determ ination by this Court that t h e L eg islature 16 consented to suit in it s own courts does not also m ean th at t he Le gislature consented 17 to s uit

in the f ed er al c ourt s. See Pennhu rst , 465 U
. S. a t 10 0 n. 9 ( not ing that the 18 U nit ed

S ta te s S upr em e Co urt “ co nsi ste ntl y ha s he ld tha t a Sta te ’ s wa ive r of sov er ei gn19

1 im m uni ty in its ow n c ourts i s not a w ai ve r of the E le ve nthA m en dm en t i m m uni ty in 2 the f ed er al c ourts” ); G re at N

. L ife I ns. , 322 U
. S. a t 54 (“ [I ] t i s no t c onso nant w ithour 3 dua l sy ste m

f or the Fe de ra l co urts . . . to re ad the co nse nt to em br ac e Fe de ra l a s w el l 4 as state courts.” ). 5 4 . N e w M e x i c o w a i v e d s o v e r e i g n i mmu n i t y t o US E RR A c l a i ms 6 { 29} Ramire z c o n t en d s th at b y en ac t i n g Se ct i o n 2 0 -4 -7 .1 (B ), t h e L eg i s l at u re w aived 7 s tate sovereign im

m unityto his USE RRAaction. W e agre e. Sec tion 2 0-4-7.1(B) 8 provides as follo ws: “ The r ights , benef its and protection s of t h e fe deral U niform ed 9 Service s Em

ploym ent and Ree m

ploy m ent Rights Act of 1994 sh all apply to a m em ber 10 of the na tiona l gu ard or de re d to f ed er al or state a ct ive duty

f or ape ri od o f thi rty

or 11 m or e co nse cu tiv e day s. ” T he L eg is la tu re e na ct ed thi s pr ovi sio n in200 4, w ith 12 knowledge of Alden ’ s holdi ng tha t “ the pow er s dele ga te d to Co ngr es s un de r A rt ic le 1 3 I
. . . d o n o t i n c l u d e t h e p o w e r t o s ub j e c t n o n c o n s e n t i n g S t a t e s t o p r i v a t e sui ts f or 14 dam ages in state courts.” See Alden , 527 U
. S. a t 71 2; 2004 N
. M. L aw s, ch
. 37 § 1 15 (co di fie d at § 2 0
- 4
- 7 .1(B )). Se e als o In c. Ct y. of Lo s A lam os v . J

ohns on , 198 9- 16 N MS C- 045, ¶ 4, 108 N
. M. 633, 776 P. 2d 1 252 (p re sum ing that the le gis la tur e is w el l 17 inform ed as to existing law ). 18 { 30} Under S ection 20-4-7.1(B), the Le gislature provid ed that m em bers of the N ew20

1 Me xic o Na tio na l Gu ar d who ar e or de re d to ac tiv e duty fo r at le as t thirty c onse cu tiv e 2 day s wil l be ne fi t f

ro m e ve ry appl ic ab le r igh t tha t U SE RR A c re at es . T w o of

the se 3 rights are p ertinent here. First, US ERRA guarantees m em bers of a uniform ed service 4 the r igh t no t t o be de nie d “ an y be ne fi t of

e m plo ym en t by an em

plo y er on the ba sis ” 5 of their m em

bership in a uniform ed service. 38 U. S. C. § 431 1(a). Sec ond, US ERRA 6 cr eate s apr ivate r igh t of a ct ionf or da m ag es agai nst

astate e m

plo y er to re m edy 7 vi ol at io ns of USER RA’s su bs ta nt iv e an ti di sc riminat io n p ro te ct io ns . Se e 38 U. S. C. 8 §§ 43 23(a)(3), (d)(1)( B)-( C), 4311 (a). 9 { 31} Se ct ion20- 4- 7.1 (B) gu ar an te es both th e subs tanti ve a nti dis cr im inatio n r igh t 10 and the right of action against a state e m p l o yer t o m em

bers of the national guard 11 or de re d to f

ed er al or state a ct ive duty

f or ape ri od o f thi rty or m or e co nse cu tiv e day s. 12 Se ct ion20- 4- 7. 1( B) a dopt s th e ri ght s gu ar an te ed b y U S E RR Aw i th o ut l i m i t at ion
. T he 13 st at uto ry

pr ovi sio n c ont ai ns n o su gge sti on tha t i t on ly e xte nds some o f

th e r igh ts 14 crea te d b y

USERRA. See § 20-4-7.1(B). It does not sug gest that the Legislature 15 int en de d to ex te nd U SE RR A ’ s subs tanti ve an tid isc ri m inatio n ri ght to m em be rs of the 16 N ewMe xic o N at ion al G uard but to w ith hold U SE RR

A ’ s r igh t t o ar em edy

f or 17 da m ag es . Se e id. W e the re fo re have no r ea son to co nstru e the statut e as not c onf er ri ng 18 U SE RR

A ’ s r igh t of

a ct iona ga ins t st at e em

plo y er s to na tio na l gu ar d m em be rs .21

1 { 32} Other

relevant statu tes counsel against such a construction , and we r ead 2 st atut es in pa ri m at eri a to asc ert ai n l eg is la ti ve in te nt . Se eS tate v . D av is , 2003-NMS C3 022, ¶ 12, 134 N
. M. 172, 74 P. 3d 1064
. T he L eg isl at ur e ha s m ad e cl ear th at “ [t] he 4 int en t of

the N ewMe xic o M ili tary Co de a nd a ll la ws an d r eg ulatio ns o f the state 5 af fe ct ing the m ili tary

f or ce s is to re as ona

bly c onf orm to al l l aw s and r eg ulatio ns o f 6 the United States affe cting the sam e subjects, except as otherwise expressly provided 7 with respect to m ilitary j ustice.” N MSA1978 , § 20-1-2 (1987). F urtherm ore, it has 8 long been the policy

of N ew Mexico to provide a p rivate righ t of actio n for dam ages 9 against the St at e as an e m ploy er f or the failure to reem

ploya qualify ing service 10 m em be r who returns to st at e em pl oym en t fr om

act iv e dut y . See N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 11 28- 15- 3 ( 1941 , a m en de d 1971 ) (c re at ing apr ivate r igh t of a ct ionto en fo rc e the 12 subs tantive right s cr ea ted by NMS A 1978, Se ction 28 -15-1 (1941)). T o be sure, 13 Se ct ion s 28 -1 5- 1 and 2 8- 15- 3 w oul d no t pr ovi de Ram ire z w ithar em edy be ca use 14 tho se pr ovi sio ns g uard ag ai ns t a state e m plo y er ’ s f ai lur e to r ee m

plo y aqua lif y ing 15 se rv ic e m em

be r an d R am ir ez w as r ee m plo y ed by CY FD
. Ram irez c om

pla ine d of 16 se pa rat e ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on s, i nc lu di ng ter m in at io n, t ak en by CY FD be ca

use 17 of his m ili tary se rv ic e. N ev er the le ss, the L eg isl at

ur e’ s c re at ionof

a pr ivate r igh t of 18 ac tio n f

or qua lif y ing se rv ic e m em

be rs to re co ve r fr om

the dis cr im inatio n of not

be ing22

1 re em ploy ed beca

use of the ir uni fo rm ed

se rv ic e str ongl y

sup ports tha t, by

e na ct ing 2 Se ct ion20- 4- 7. 1( B) , th e L eg isl at ur e int en de d to cr eate a ri ght of ac tio n for qua lif y ing 3 se rv ic e m em

be rs to re co ve r fr om

oth er f or m s of e m plo ym en t di sc ri m inatio n. T hus, 4 in ligh t of

both th e L eg isl at

ur e’ s lo ngst an din g w ill ing ne ss t o c onf er apr ivate r igh t of 5 ac tio n a ga ins t state em plo y er s on se rv ic e m em

be rs w ho r et

ur n f ro m a ct ive duty

a nd 6 suf fe r the e m

plo ym en t di sc ri m inatio n of not be ing r ee m

plo y ed be ca use of the ir 7 m ilitary

service ( as indicated by

Sec tion 2 8-15-3) and the Legislature’ s intent th at 8 Ne w Me xico law conform to federa l law with respect to the m ilitary force s (as 9 expressed by

Sec tion 2 0-1-2), it is c lear that Section 20-4-7.1(B) confers on m em bers 10 of the N ew Me xic o Na tio na l Gu ar d who a re or de re d to f ed er al or state a ct ive duty

f or 11 a pe r i od of t hi rt y or m or e c on se c ut i ve day s a pr i vat e r i gh t of a c t i on f or dam ages 12 ag ai nst

the S ta te to re m edy a viol at ion of U SE RR A ’ s subst an tiv e an tid isc ri m inatio n 13 ri ght s. 14 { 33} Other

courts, when confronted with the sam e issue, have interpre ted statutes 15 sim ilar to S ec tio n 20 -4 -7
. 1( B) a nd S ec tio n 20 -1 -2 to ind ic at e a le gis la tiv e int en t t o 16 w ai ve im

m uni ty to pr ivate U SE RR

A a ct ion s. See S

co co s v . Sta te D ep ’t

of V et eran 17 A ffairs , 819 N
. W
. 2d 3 60, 366 -6 7 ( W is. Ct
. App. 201 2) ( hol din g th at astatut e 18 pr ovi din g th at

the dis ch ar ge f

ro m f ed er al a ct ive duty of

pe rs ons re sto re d to state23

1 em ploym ent is sub

j ect to all fe deral law s affe cting any private e m

p l oym ent was 2 suf fi ci en t to authorize the plaintiff’ s claim s against the state und er U SE RRA ); 3 P anar el lo v

. Sta te , 2009 W L 3328484 , at *4 ( R.I
. Super. Jan. 22, 2009 ) (“ This Court 4 w ill not

r ea chth e con sti tut ion al que sti on r ai se d a bove be ca

use it is cl ear that the 5 [W isconsi n Legislature] wa ived the State’ s sovereign i m m unityby necessary 6 im plication when it incorpo rated U SE RRA , w ithou t qualification, within its general 7 laws. ”). 8 { 34} W he n the L e g i s l a tu r e c r e a t e s ar i g h to f a c t i o n f o r d a m a g e s a g a i n s tt h e S t a te 9 it the re by

m ak es the S ta te li ab le to sui t. See Lu b oyeski , 199 4- N MS C- 032, ¶ 14 10 (h old ing that the H um anRi ght s A ct ’ s pr ovi sio ns p er m itt ing plai nti ff

s to obt ai n 11 da m ag es a nd atto rn ey ’ s f ee s f ro m the S ta te w aive d the S ta te ’ s so ve re ignim m uni ty 12 created by

the Tort Claim s Act)
. When enacting Section 20-4-7.1(B), the Le gislature 13 furn ish ed

qua lifying m em

be rs of the N ewMe xic o N at ion al G uard ar igh t of a ct ion 14 ag ai nst st at e em

plo y er s f or m one y dam ag es if

the y a re de nie d any

be ne fi t of 15 em ploym ent b y a s tate em

ploy er on the basis of their m em bership in th e national 16 guard or their service to this State and the United States. Therefore , we conclud e that 17 the Legi slatur e co nse nte d to pr ivate U SE RR A sui ts f or dam ag es a ga ins t st at e 18 em plo y er s.24

1 { 35} O ur

a na ly sis dif

fe rs f ro m the re as oni ng o f the Co urt of Appe al s. T he Co urt of 2 Appea ls f

ir st d et er m ine d th at

the W ar P ow er s C lause doe s no t gr an t C ongr es s th e 3 po wer t o s ub

ject n on co ns en ti ng st at es to pri va te su it s fo r da m ag es in th ei r own 4 co ur ts . R am irez , 2 0 1 4-NMC A- 057, ¶¶ 17-18. T he Court of Appeals then reasoned 5 that S ec tio ns 2 0- 1- 2 and 2 0- 4- 7. 1( B) , w hic h se rv e to con fe r the r igh ts c re at ed by 6 U SE RR

A on qua lif

y ing m em

be rs of the N ew Me xic o Na tio na l Gu ar d, cannot have 7 ex te nde d U SE RR

A ’ s j ur isd ic tio na l pr ovi sio n th at apr ivate r igh t of

a ctio n m ay

be 8 brough t in a state co u rt . Accordingl y , the C ourt of Appeals concluded that neither 9 Se ct ion20- 1- 2 nor S ec tio n 20 -4 -7
. 1( B) w ai ve d N ewMe xic o’ s so ve re ignim m uni ty 10 to pri va te USERRA act io ns se ek in g m on et ary da m ag es . Ram irez , 201 4- N MC A -0 57, 11 ¶ 25. 12 { 36} U nli ke the Co urt of Appe al s, w e do not dec ide w he the r the W ar P ow er s C lause 1 3 g ra n t s Co n g re s s th e p o we r t o ab ro gate state sovereign im m unity . W hethe r U SE RRA’s 14 j ur isd ic tio na l pr ovi sio n th at e nf or ce m en t a ctio ns “ m ay

be br ough t i n aS ta te c ourt” 15 is ultra vires , and, consequently , whether the L egislature could have valid ly extended 16 that j ur isd ic t i o na l pr ovi sio n, are issues in apposit e to the proper resolution of thi s case. 17 38 U. S. C. § 432 3(b)(2). Ne w Me xico’ s district courts are courts of genera l 18 juri sd ic ti on . Tr uji llo v . Sta te , 196 8- N MS C-179, ¶ 3, 79 N
. M. 618 , 447 P
. 2d 2 79.25

1 T he ir pow er to ad j udi cate cl ai m s is gr ound ed in the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n, not 2 in a f ed er al statut e. N
. M. Co nst . , a rt . V I, § 13
. 3 { 37} In the light of the text and p urpose of Section 20-4-7.1(B), the Le gislature 4 cl earl y co nf

er re d U SE RR

A ’ s an tid isc ri m inatio n ri ght s onqua lif y ing m em be rs of the 5 N ewMe xic o N at ional G uard a nd e xte nde d U SE RR

A ’ s pr ivate r igh t of

a ct ionf or 6 da m ag es a gains t st at e em plo y er s th at

vio la te tho se a nti dis cr im inatio n r igh ts. I n so 7 doi ng, the L eg isl at

ur e w ai ve d N ewMe xic o’ s im m uni ty to sui t. 8 III. CON CLU SION 9 { 38} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e re ve rs e the de ci sio n of the Co urt of Ap pe al s and 10 re ins ta te the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t and d am ag e aw ar d. 11 { 39} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 13 JUD ITH K. NA KAM UR A, Justice
14 WE CONCUR:

15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 16 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Ch ief Justice26

1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 2 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 4 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 6 BARBAR

A J. VIGIL, Justice