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

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ___ 3 Fi lin g D at e: O ct obe r 27, 201 4 4 N O. 33, 002 5 CA THYMOS ES and PA UL F. WEINB AU M, 6 Pl ai nti ff

s- Appe llants , 7 v
. 8 HANNA SKANDERA, 9 AC TING SEC RET AR Y O F E DU CA TION and 10 NEW MEX ICO P UBL IC ED UC ATION DE PA RTM ENT , 11 D ef

en dants -Appe lle es , 12 an d 13 ALBUQUE RQUE ACADEMY, et a l., 14 D ef

en dants -I nte rv en or s- Appe lle es . 15 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA NTAFE CO UN TY 16 Sa ra h M . S in gle to n, D ist ri ctJu dg e 17 Frank Susm an 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 The Graes er Law Fi rm , LLC 20 Christoph er L . G raeser 21 San ta Fe, NM 22 fo r Appe llants1 Albert V . G onzales, D eputy Ge neral Counsel 2 Pu bli c E duc at ionD ep ar

tm en t 3 San ta Fe, NM 4 Sutin, T hay er & Brow ne, P .C. 5 Su san M
. H ap ka 6 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 7 for Appellees 8 Mo dr al l, Sp erl in g, Ro eh l, Harr is & Si sk , P.A. 9 R. E
. T hom

pson 10 E m il J. K ie hne 11 Je nni fe r G
. A nde rs on 12 Sarah M
. S te ve nson 13 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 14 for Inter

venors-Appellees1 OPIN ION

2 WECH SLER , Jud ge. 3 { 1} U nde r the I nstru ct ion al Ma te ri al L aw , N MS A 197 8, §§ 22- 15- 1 to - 14 ( 1967 , 4 as a m en de d th ro ugh 2011 ) (I ML ), the S ta te of N ewMe xic o P ubl ic E duc at ion 5 D ep ar tm en t ( the D ep ar

tm en t) pur ch as es a nd di st ri but es ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l t o 6 sc ho o l d i s t r i c t s , s t a t e i n s t i tu t i o n s , a n d p r i v a t e s c h o o l s a s a g e n t s f o r t h e b e n e f

i t of 7 eligi bl e st

ud e nt s. S e c t i on 22
- 15
- 5,
- 7( B )
. P l a i nt i f f s, C a t hy M os e s a nd P aul F. 8 W ei nbaum , c ha lle nge the c onst itu tio na lity of the I ML w ithr es pe ct

to th e pur ch as e 9 and distrib ution of instructional m aterial to private schools
. They rely upon the Ne w 1 0 Me xic o C o n s t i tu t i o n A rt i c l e I X , S e c t i o n 1 4 ( p r o h i b i t i n g t h e s t a t e f r o m d i r e c t l y or 11 ind ir ec tly le ndi ng or ple dgi ng “ its c re dit or m ak [i ng] a ny

don at ionto or

in ai d of a ny 12 pe rs on, a sso ci at ionor pub lic or

pr iva te co rp or at ion ”) ; A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 13 (p ro hib iti ng f

unds fro m use in supp ort of se ct ar ian, de nom ina tio na l, or pr iva te 14 school); Article I V, Sec tion 3 1 (prohibit ing appro p riatio n for educational purpos es 15 “ to any

pe rs on, c or

por at ion , a sso ci at ion , insti tut ionor c om m uni ty , not und er the 16 ab sol ute c ontro l of

the state ”) ; an d A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 11 ( gr an tin g th e fr ee dom to 17 w or shi p G od a cc or din g to one ’ s own c onsc ie nc e an d pr ohi bit ing the supp ort of a ny 18 re lig iou s sec t or den om ina tio n)
. P la int if fs f urthe r co nte nd tha t Ze lle rs v . H uff , 195 1- 19 NMS C-072, 55 N. M. 501, 236 P. 2d 94 9, is controlling prece dent in th is case.2

1 { 2} T he dis tr ic t c our

t r ej ect edPla in ti ffs ’ arg um en ts an d g ran te d s um m ar y j udgm ent 2 to Def endants Hanna Sk an d er a, Ac ting Secretar y of E ducation, and NewMexico 3 Pu bli c E duc at ionD ep ar

tm en t. W e hol d th at Z

el le rs is not co ntr oll ing a nd tha t the 4 IML does not vi olate the Ne w Me xico Const itutio n. W e theref ore af firm the district 5 co urt’ s su m

m ar y j udgm en t. 6 PROCEDURAL BACKGRO UND 7 { 3} Pl ai n t i f

f s f i l e d a v e r i f

i e d c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t o ry j u d g m e n t a s to t he 8 co nst itu tio na lity of the IM L
. A ft er D ef en dants an sw er ed , Pl ai nti ff s fil ed a m oti on f

or 9 summ ary

j udgm ent. At a hearing on the m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent, the district 10 co urt st at ed

that i t in te nd ed to g rant the m oti on b as ed on Ze lle rs . I nte rv en or s, the 11 A lbu que rque A ca de m y , A nic a an d M ay a Be nia, t he N ewMe xic o A sso ci at ionof 12 N onpu

bli c Sc hool s, Reh ob ot h C hr ist ian S ch ool , S t. F ranc is S ch ool , S unse t M es a 13 School, and Hope Christian S chool, then f iled a m otion to intervene. A fter P laintiffs 14 w ith dr ew

the ir ini ti al op po si ti on to in te rv en ti on , th e d is tri ctco ur t gra nte d inte rv entio n 15 and ordered addition al briefing concerning the applicabilityof Ze lle rs . The district 16 co urt he ld a

se co nd h eari ng o n th e m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t, r ev er se d it s pr ior 17 ruling, and d en i ed Plaintiffs’ m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent. I t entered an order 18 gr an tin g su m

m ar y j udgm en t t o D ef

en dants .3

1 THE IM L 2 { 4} T he I ML e m an at es f ro m a tte m pts by the N ew Me xic o Le gis la tur e ove r tim e to 3 pr ovi de te xtb ooks an d instr uc tio na l m at er ia l to Ne w Me xic o stude nts . I n 19 29, the 4 L eg isl at

ur e en ac te d le gis la tio n en tit le d “ Fr ee T ex t B ooks ” to p ro vid e fr ee te xtb ooks 5 in the pub lic sc hool s and a ppr opr ia te d funds to co ve r pur ch as es f or f ir st and s ec ond 6 gr a de s tud e nt s. N M S A 1 92 9, § § 12 0- 17 01 , 1 70 2 ( 19 29 )
. I n 19 31 , t he L e gi sl ature 7 cr eate d “ a state sc hool bui ldi ng, te xt b ook an d r ur al a id f und” und er

the sup er vis ion 8 of the S ta te Bo ar d of

E duc at iona nd a

ppr opr ia te d th e an nua l ba lanc e of the f und 9 under the Mineral Le asing L and Ac t (ML LA ). 1931 N. M. Laws, ch. 138, §§ 1, 2. I n 10 1933 , the L eg isl at

ur e ex pande d th e Fr ee T ex t B ook Fund o f the F re e T ex t B ooks 11 statute to include “ free text book s for all children in the schools in the State of Ne w 12 Me xic o, f

ro m the fi rs t to ei ghth gr ad es inc lus ive [. ] ” 193 3 N
. M. L aw s, c h. 112 , § 1. 13 The statute w as am ended and recodified in 194 1 and entitled “ Tex t Books.” It 14 pr ovi de d a

pp ro pr ia tio n f

ro m the f und unde r the ML L A
. N MS A 194 1, §§ 5 5- 1701 15 to - 20 ( 1941 Co m

p. ); § 55 -1 705. T his law w as am en de d and re co dif ie d in 1967 a nd 16 en tit le d “ Sc hool T ex tbo ok L aw . ” N MS A 1953 , §§ 77- 13- 1 to -1 4 (V ol. 8, 1967 Re pl. 17 Po ck et

Su pp .). T he S ch ool T ex tbo ok L aww as a m en de d in197 5 and l ab el ed the 18 “ Instructional Material L aw .” NMS A 1953 , §§ 77-13-1 to - 14 ( Interim Supp. 1975).4

1 The I ML wa s, in turn, am ended and recom piled in 1978
. NMS A 197 8, §§ 22-15-1 2 to -14 (2005 ). 3 { 5} The op erat io n o f th e IML h a s h i s t or ic al ly been co nn ect edto th e MLLA. 4 Indeed, the principal, if not exclusive, fundin g s ource for the instructio nal m aterial 5 fund is th e ML LA
. Under the ML LA , one-half of the m o nies that the federal 6 governm ent rece ives from the rental of public lands is p aid to the state within which 7 the pub l i c l a nd

i s l oc a t e d. 3 0 U
. S
. C
. § 1 91 ( 20 12 )
. T he N e wM e xi c o L egislature 8 m ak es a n annua l a

ppr opr ia tio n f

ro m the ML L A to the ins tr

uc tio na l m aterial f

und. 9 NMS A 1978, § 22-8-34(A) (2001). 10 { 6} As cu rren tl y

en act ed , th e IML es tabl is he s t he in st ru ct io na l ma t e r i al fun d, a 11 non- re ve rt ing f

und adm ini ste re d by

the D ep ar

tm en t, to be us ed

to pur ch as e 12 “ instructio nal m aterial, ” defined under the IML as “ school text book s and other 13 educational m edia that are used as t he basis for in struction[.] ” Section 22 -15-2(C); 14 -5
. F re e use of

ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l i s pr ovi de d to stude nts a tte ndi ng e ar ly 15 ch ildhood

pr ogr am s and any

gr ad e thr ou gh gr ad e twe lve in a publ ic sc hool , astate 16 instit ution , or a private school approved by the De partm ent. Section 22-15-7(A). 17 U nde r the I ML , sc hool s ob tain ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l a s a ge nts f or the ir stu de nts . 18 Se ct ion 22- 15- 7( B)
. T he pr oc es s dif fe rs fo r pr iva te sc hool s. Whil e the D ep ar tm en t 19 distr i b u t es funds to pu blic school s and state instit ution s to acquire instruction al5

1 m aterial, it m akes paym ent directly to an in-state de p o s i t o ryfor the instructional 2 m at er ia l f

or pr iva te sc hool s. S ec tio n 22 -1 5- 9( D ), ( E ). T he sc hool dis tr ic t or sc hool 3 is the n re spon sib le to dis tr ibu te the ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l fo r the stu de nts ’ use an d to 4 keep it safe. Sec tion 2 2-15-7(B), (C)
. 5 { 7} The s ch ool di stricts or schools , a s agents for their students, select particular 6 ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l fr om a m ult ipl e lis t ad opt ed by the D ep ar tm en t. S ec tio n 22 -1 5- 7 8 ( A ) , ( B )
. L o c a l s c h o o l b o a r d s m u s ts o l i c i tp a r e n t a l i n v o l v e m e n ti n t h e pr oc es s. 8 Se ct ion22- 15- 8( B)
. S ch oo l distr ic ts m ay appl y f or aw ai ve r to u se am ax im um of 9 fi fty pe rc en t of

the ir a nnua l a llo catio ns f

or ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l no t onthe m ult ipl e 10 list, and private schools m ay expend “ up to fifty percent of their instructio nal m aterial 11 funds fo r ite m s th at

a re no t on the m

ult ipl e lis t; pr ovi de d th at no f unds sha ll be 12 expended for religious, sectarian or nons ecular m aterials[. ] ” Se ction 22 -15-9(C). 13 CON STITU TIONA L A RGU MEN TS 14 Stand ard of R eview 15 { 8} Pl ai nti ff

s’ co nst itu tio na l ar gum en ts as se rt tha t the IM L co nf lic ts w it h four 16 pr ov is io ns of t he New Mex ic o C on st it ut io n. In ad dr es si ng th es e p ro vi si on s, we 17 re vie wque sti ons co nc er nin g c onst itu tio na l i nte rp re ta tio n as m atte rs of lawund er de 18 no vo rev ie w. Tr i- Sta te G en erati on & T rans m iss ion A ss’ n, I

nc . v . D ’A nto nio , 201 2- 19 N MS C- 039, ¶

11, 289 P
. 3d 1 232. W e m ust pr es um e tha t st at

ute s are va lid

a nd6

1 upho ld the m

a ga ins t c onst itutio na l c ha lle nge “ unl es s w e ar e sa tis fi ed be y ond al l 2 reas on ab le do ub t t ha t t he Legi sl atur e” ex ceed ed it s co ns ti tu ti on al au th or it y . State ex 3 re l. U dal l v

. P ub. E

m ps. R et
. B d. , 199 5- N MS C- 078, ¶ 7, 120 N
. M. 786, 907 P. 2d 1 90. 4 A rt ic le X II, S ec ti on 3 of t he N ew M ex ic o C on st it ut ion 5 { 9} A s pe rt ine nt t o th is ca se , A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 p ro vid es that no “ funds 6 ap pr opr ia te d, le vie d or c oll ec te d f

or e duc at ion al pur

pose s, sha ll be use d f

or the 7 supp ort of any

sectarian, denom ina t i o n al or private school[.] ” O ur Suprem e Court 8 ha s st at ed tha t the pur

pose of thi s pr ovi sio n “ is t o in sur e ex cl usi ve c ontro l by the state 9 ove r our

pub lic ed ucat ion al sy ste m , a nd t o in sur e tha t no ne of the state ’ s pu

bli c 10 s ch ools ever becom e sectar ian or denom ination al.” P r i n c e v . B d

. o f E d u c . o f C en t. 11 Co nsol

. I

nde p. Sc h. D ist
. No

. 22 , 1 97 5- NMSC -068, ¶ 20, 88 N
. M. 548 , 543 P
. 2d 1 2 1 1 7 6
. B y “co n t ro l ,” i tm ea n t“ co n t ro l o v eral l o f t h e a ff ai rs o f t h e s ch o o l [, ]” 13 in cl ud in g c urric ul um , di sc ip li ne , fin an ces , and ad m in is tra ti on . Id

. ¶ 21. 14 { 10} Pl ai nti ff

s do not a sse rt that the dis tr ibu tio n of

ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l t o pr iva te 15 sc hool s a s a ge nts fo r the ir stu de nts int er fe re s w ith the sta te ’ s co ntr ol ove r the pub lic 16 ed uc at ion al sy ste m . I nde ed , und er the IM L , the D ep ar tm en t co ntr ols the dis tr ibu tio n 17 an d c ont en t of

ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l use d by al l stu de nts , inc lud ing tho se in pr iva te 18 sc hool s. S ec tio ns 2 2- 15- 7( B) , - 8( A )- (C ). P la int iffs al so do n ot a sse rt that the7

1 instructio nal m aterial itsel f i s sectarian or denom ination al because the I ML 2 specifically

prohibit s the use of funds for such m aterial. Sec tion 2 2-15-9(C). 3 { 11} Plaintiffs do argue, m ore genera lly , that the f urnishi ng of free instruction al 4 m at er ia l t o pr iva te sc hool s co nf lic ts w ith A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3. I n a ddi tio n to r el y ing 5 upon Ze lle rs , P la int if

fs re ly upo n c as es f

ro m oth er state s inw hic h c ourts h av e he ld 6 unc onst itu tio na l pr ovi sio ns tha t Pl ai nti ff s sta te ar e sim ilar to A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3, 7 pr ev en tin g th e state ’ s di str ibu tio n of f re e textbooks to stu de nts in pr iva te sc hool s. 8 Rather than ac cepting the rationale o f th ese cases, th e district court determ ined that 9 ca se s fr om oth er state s tha t uphe ld fr ee te xtb ook dis tr ibu tio n w er e m or e pe rs ua siv e 10 because th e con stitut ional provisi ons of t hose states m ore clos ely tracked A rticle X II, 11 Se ct ion12. 12 { 12} I na d dre ssi ng P la int if fs ’ pos iti on, w e ini tia lly

dis cu ss Ze lle rs b ec au s e P l ai n tiffs 13 ar gue that i t c ontro ls this c as e an d be ca use , a s w e dis cu ss, it

is ill ustrativ e of

the 14 pr obl em s a ddr es se d by A rt icle XII, S ec tio n 3. C onc lud ing that Ze lle rs is not 1 5 co n t r o l l i n g , w e n e x t d i s c u s s c a s e s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S up r e m e C o u rta nd t he 1 6 supr em e c o u rt s o f

o t h e r s t a t e s t h a tc o n s i d e r

t h e E s t ab l i s h m e n tC l au s e o f t h e F i r st 17 Am en dm ent to the United States Constituti on and state const itutio ns. W e then 18 analy ze w hether A rticle X II, Sec tion 3 applies to thi s case.8

1 Ze llers v. H

uff 2 { 13} T he dis tr ic t co urt i nit ia lly ind ic at ed it s in te nt t o ho ld tha t Ze lle rs appl ie s to the 3 IM L , but , af

te r al low ing int er

ve nti on and ad dit ion al br ie fi ng, a nd h old ing ase co nd 4 he ar ing , de ci de d th at Ze lle rs did not co ntr ol thi s ca se . Pl ai nti ff s ur ge thi s C ourt on 5 ap pe al to hol d th at Ze lle rs is bin din g pr ec ed en t. 6 { 14} Ze lle rs w as a cl as s ac tio n in w hic h the pla int if fs re que ste d th e dis tr ic t c ourt t o 7 de cl ar e ill eg al the te ac hin g of se ct ar ian r el igi on i n th e publ ic scho ol s and the 8 expenditu re of pub l i c fu nds in aid of Rom an Catholic parochial schools , to declar e 9 m em be rs of Ro m an Catho lic re lig iou s or de rs ine lig ibl e to t ea chin publ ic sc hool s, to 10 bar ce rt ai n Ro m an Catho lic sis te rs an d br oth er s fr om te ac hin g inthe pub lic sc hool s, 11 and to enjoin the activities em braced w ithin the district court’ s rulings
. 1951 -N MSC12 072, ¶ ¶ 1- 2. T he c om

pla int na m ed as de fe ndants the ind ivi dua l m em be rs of the S ta te 13 Bo ar d of

E duc at ion , m em

be rs of c er ta in c ounty , ind ep en de nt, a nd m uni ci pa l bo ar ds 14 of education, the State E ducational Budg et A udito r, and various m em bers of Rom an 15 Cat ho li c rel ig io us or de rs tea ch in g i n t he sch oo ls in cl ud edin th e co m pl ai nt . Id

. ¶ 1. 16 { 15} T he dis tr ic t c ourt i n Z e l l e rs ad dr es se d anum

be r of iss ue s ari sin g f

ro m the 17 m ul t i

- f a c e t e d i nt e rr e l a t i on sh i p of t he R om a n C a t ho l i c C hur c h, t he S t a t e o f N ew 18 Me xic o, a nd l oc al sc hool s inthe ope ratio n of both p ub lic and p ar oc hia l sc hool s in 19 va rio us sc ho ol di st ric ts in th e st at e. Id

. ¶¶ 1, 2, 4. T he dis tr ic t c ourt sum m ar iz ed thi s9

1 interrelationship by

finding th at “

Ne w Me xico had a Rom an Catholic school sy stem 2 supp orted by

publi c funds within its pu blic school sy stem .” Id

. ¶ 13. 3 { 16} The d i str i c tc ourti ss ue d ab r oa d- r a ng e d de c l a r a t or y j ud gm e nt

t hati nc luded 4 declaring that “ t h e fu rn ishin g of fre e textbook s to schoo ls other than tax su pported 5 schools ” violates Article IX , S ection 14 and Article XII, Section 3 of the Ne w Me xico 6 Constitu tion; that the furnishing of fr ee textbooks for private, parochial, or sectar ian 7 schools wa s unlawful; and that pub lic funds expended by the state in furnishing fre e 8 te xtb ooks w er e ill eg al ly use d “ in fur the ranc e of the dis se m ina tio n of Rom anCatho lic 9 doctrines.” Zellers , 195 1- N MS C- 072, ¶ 18. I ts r el ev an t f

ind ing s c onc er

nin g 10 textboo ks were that, in som e school districts within NewMexico, the state furnished 11 te xt bo ok s wi th ou t ch arg e t o p aro ch ia l s ch oo ls , id. ¶ 4; Ro m anCatho lic sis te rs a nd 12 brothers wer e paid by the state to teach in public schoo ls , fr ee textb ooks we re 13 fu rn is he d, an d re li gi ou s d oc tri ne s wer e d is se m in at ed , id. ; and the state had adopted 14 a co m ple te li ne of

te xtb oo ks f

or use in Ca tho lic sc hool s th at w as f ur nis he d to the 15 Cat ho li c sc ho ol s an d s om e p ub li c sc ho o l s w i th ou t ch arg e. Id

. T he district court 16 en j oin ed the ind ivi dua l m em

be rs of the S ta te Bo ar d of

E duc at ionf

ro m c er ta in a ct ion s 17 w ith re spe ct to te xtb ooks that inc lud ed , “ furn ish ing se ct ar ian indoc tr ina te d te xtb ooks 18 to tax sup ported schoo ls,” “ [f] urnishi ng free te x t b ooks to school s other than tax 19 supp or ted sc hool s, ” an d “ [f ] ur nis hin g se ct ar ian and i ndoc tr ina te d te xtb ooks or10

1 te xtb ooks f

or Catho lic sc hool s on ly

to pr iva te or

paro ch ia l sc hool s at the ex pe nse of 2 the state.” Id

. ¶ 19. 3 { 17} T he iss ue be fo re our S upr em e Co urt i n Ze lle rs tha t is re le vant to thi s case 4 concerns the injunction the district court issued barr ing th e individ ual board m em bers 5 fr om ta kin g a ct ionthat the dis tr ic t c ourt de cl ar ed to be unc onst itu tio na l. O ur 6 Suprem e Court vacated the injunction bec ause the district c ourt la cked subject m atter 7 juri sd ic ti on . Id

. ¶ 77. I t othe rw ise a ff

irm ed the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t wi th 8 ex cep ti on s n ot ap pl ic ab le t o t h i s cas e. Id

. ¶ 83. Makin g an e xc ep tio n to it s r ule of 9 re fraining f

ro m a ddr es sin g is sue s no t be fo re it f or de ci sio n, be ca

use of the “ gr av e 10 im portance of the m atters involved,” the Court stated that if the d i s trict court had 11 pr op erl y

ha d ju ris di ct io n, it s ru li ng s un de rlyin g it s in jun ct io n were co rrec t. Id

. ¶ 79. 12 { 18} W e do not

be lie ve that Ze lle rs is pr ec ed en t f or thi s c as e fo r thr ee r ea sons . 13 Fi rs t, both th e dis tr ic t c ourt and our Su pr em e Court la ck ed subj ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n 14 to address an injunction against the indiv idual board m em bers. When the lower court 1 5 l a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d e c i d e i s s u e s , t h e c o u rto n ap p e a l a l s o m a y n o td e c i d e t h e m. 16 State ex rel. Ov erton v. N. M. State Tax Comm ’n , 1969 -N MS C- 140, ¶ 20, 81 N
. M. 28, 17 462 P. 2d 6 13. 18 { 19} Se co nd, our

S upr em e Co urt’ s e xpr es sio n of its opi nio n co nc er nin g as pe ct s of 19 the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t ov er w hic h it did not ha ve j ur isd ic tio n is dic tum . D ic tum11

1 is a st atem ent “ unnecessary to [a] decision of t he issue before the Court . . . n o m atter 2 how deliberately

or em phati ca l l y phrased.” Ruggles v. Ruggles , 199 3- N MS C- 043, 3 ¶ 22 n. 8, 116 N
. M. 52, 860 P
. 2d 1 82. T he Co urt’ s st at em en t of the im portanc e of

the 4 iss ue onl y

e m pha siz es tha t it w as e xpr es sin g an op ini on tha t w as unn ec es sary to its 5 de ci si on . Id

. ; s e e a l s o P i n c h e i r a v . A l l

s t a t e I n s . Co

. , 2 007-N MC A -0 94, ¶ 51, 142 6 N
. M. 283 , 164 P
. 3d 9 82 ( “ Whe n an appe llate c ourt m ak es state m en ts tha t are not 7 necessary

to its decisio n, those statem ents are w ithou t the bind ing force of law .” ). 8 { 20} Th i rd , t h e issues of Ze lle rs , a s in cl ude d inthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t i n 9 Ze lle rs , a re dif

fe re nt f ro m the iss ue s inth is cas e. A lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt i n 10 Ze lle rs e nj oin ed

the state f ro m f ur nis hin g f re e te xtb ooks to pr iva te sc hool s, it did not 11 ru le upo n th e co nst itu tio na lity of apr ed ec es sor

statut e to the I ML , e nti tle d “ T ex t 12 Books,” NMS A 1941 , Sections 55-170 1 to -20, that wa s in effec t at that tim e. T hat 13 statut e, li ke the IML, pr ovi de d f or the dis tr ibu tio n of

f re e te xtb ooks to the stu de nts 14 of th e st at e reg ard le ss of t he sch oo ls th ey att en de d. Id

. I n a dd iti on, the c ont ex t i n 15 w hic h the te xtb ooks in Ze lle rs we re f urnished is differ ent from the m anner in which 16 ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l i s di str ibu te d un de r the I ML
. T he f ur nis hin g of

te xtb ooks in 17 Ze lle rs w as m er el y one as pe ct of the unc onst itu tio na l inte rr el at ion shi p th at w as the 18 foundatio n for the education sy stem . 1951 -N MSC- 072, ¶ 1 3
. (“In short, N ew 19 Me xico ha d aRo m anCatho lic sc hool sy ste m sup porte d by

pub lic f unds w ith in i ts12

1 publ ic sc hool sy ste m . ”)
. T he dis tr ic t cour t i n Ze lle rs f

ound that pu bli c funds use d f

or 2 fr ee te xtb ooks “ ar e use d in fu rth erance of the dis se m ina tio n of

Ro m anCatho lic 3 religious doctrines to students attendin g” private schools and that th e s t at e h ad 4 ad opt ed

a“ co m ple te li ne of

te xt b ooks
. . . f

or use in Ca tho lic sc hool s” that i t 5 fu rn is he d to th os e sc ho ol s as well as c ert ai n p ub li c sc ho ol s wi th ou t ch arg e. Id

. ¶ 4. 6 Ther e is no such record in this case. In contrast, the I ML specifically provides th at 7 publ ic funds cannot be us ed for sec tarian m aterials. Sec tion 2 2-15-9(C). 8 { 21} Pl ai nt iff

s con te nd th at th is Co ur t has th e o bl ig at io n t o fo ll ow Ze lle rs be ca use 9 of t h e pr in ci pl e o f st are d eci si s. Se e Tr uji llo v . Ci tyof A lbu que rque , 1998-NMS C10 031, ¶ 33, 125 N
. M. 721 , 965 P.2 d 305 (“ St ar e de ci sis is the j udi ci al obl iga tio n to 11 fo llo wpr ec ed en t[
. ] ”)
. H ow ev er , fo r the pr inc ipl e of stare de ci sis to ap ply , the pr ior 12 cas e m

us t b e b in di n g p rece de nt . As we h av e d is cu ss ed , Ze lle rs is not bin din g 13 precedent for this case. 14 Un ited S tates Su prem e C ourt E stablishm ent Clause C ases 15 { 22} T he iss ue und er ly ing P la int if fs ’ a rg um en t i s w he the r the f ur nis hing of 16 instructio nal m aterial to stu dents attendin g private schools provides un constitu tional 17 supp ort to private s ch o o ls. Be fore discussing the cases involvin g constit ution al 1 8 p r o v i s i o n s o f o t h e r s t a t e s c i t e db y t h e p a rt i e s , w e n o t e t h a tt h e U n i t e dS t a t e s S up r e me 19 Co urt ha s de te rm ine d is sue s in vo lv in g th e E sta bli shm en t C lause of

the F ir st13

1 A m en dm en t t o th e U nit ed S ta te s C onst itu tio n th at

a re r el ev an t t o our an al y sis
. T he 2 Est abl i sh m e nt C l aus e pr e ve nt s C on gr e ss f r om m a ki ng a ny l a w “ r e sp e c t i ng an 3 es ta bli shm en t of

r eligi on[
. ] ” U
. S. Co nst . a m en d. I
. A m ong its pr ohi bit ion s is the 4 levy ing of a tax “ to support any religious activities or institut ions[.] ” E ve rso n v . B d. 5 of Edu c. of Ewing Tw

p. , 330 U. S. 1, 15-16 (1947). Most states have also adopted 6 co ns ti tu ti on al pro vi si on s wi th si m il ar p ro te ct io ns . Id

. at 13- 14. A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 7 3 of the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n a dopt s asim ilar pr ote ct ion
. 8 { 23} T he U nit ed

S ta te s S upr em e Co urt ha s sp ec if ic al ly a ddr es se d th e que sti on o f 9 w he the r a state statut or y pr ogr am pr ovi din g te xtbo oks to a ll stu de nts vio la te s th e 10 E sta bli shm en t Cl au se . I n Board of Education of Central Scho ol District No. 1 v. 11 Allen ( Allen I I) , 392 U. S. 236 (1968), th e Cou rt u pheld a New York program in which 12 l o ca l publi c school autho rities loaned textbo oks to all students in grades seven 13 th ro ug h twel ve ag ai ns t an Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se ch al le ng e. Id

. at 238
. I n it s ana ly sis , 14 the Court look ed to wheth er t h ere was “ a secular legislative pu rpose and a prim ary 15 effe ct that neither advances nor inhibi ts religion.” Id

. at 243. It

de te rm ine d th at

the 16 N ewY ork te xtb ook laww as int en de d to a dvanc e ed uc at ion al opp ortun iti es by 17 extending the benefits of a general textboo k lending program to a ll children and that 18 th e fi na nc ia l b en efi t was to th e pa ren ts , n ot th e sc ho ol s t he ch il dr en att en de d. Id

. at 19 243- 44 . The Co urt de cl ine d to hol d, ba se d onthe r ec or d inthe c as e, that the14

1 te xtb ooks , w hic h r equir ed appr ova l by

pub lic sc hool auth or iti es a nd i nc lud ed onl y 2 se cu lar te xtb ooks , w er e “ ins tr um en ta l i n th e te ac hin g of r el i g i o n ” at

s e ct ar ian sc hool s. 3 Id

. at 2 4 7 -4 8 . Th e C o u rt re co g n i ze dt h at t h e t ex tb o o k s i n p ar tfu l fi l l ed t h e s t at e’s 4 in te res t i n p ro vi di n g a s ecu la r educ at io n. Id

. T he Court noted that th e problem 5 presented to it of draw ing a “ line betwee n state n eutrality to religion and state suppo rt 6 of religion” was not an easy one and was “ one of degree. ” Id

. a t2 42 ( i nternal 7 quot ation m arks and citation om itted). 8 { 24} T he U nit ed St at es S upr em e Co urt su bse que ntl y

r ule d up on t ex tbo ok l en din g 9 pr ogr am s ontw o ot he r oc ca sio ns. I n Mee k v. Pittenger , 421 U. S. 349 (197 5), 10 o v e r r u le d b

y Mit ch el l v. Hel ms , 530 U
. S. 793 ( 2000 ), f oll ow ing Allen I

I , t he Court 11 uphe ld a

P en nsy lvania pr ogr am tha t au tho ri ze d th e loan of te xtb ooks that w oul d be 12 acce pt ab le in th e p ub li c sc ho ol s t o c hi ld ren att en di ng no np ub li c sc ho ol s. Mee k , 421 13 U
. S. a t 35 3- 54, 362. A s agui de lin e, it appl ie d th e thr ee -p ar

t t es t i t ha d de ve lop ed

in 14 its rece nt Establishm ent Clause cases: (1) whether th e st atute has a secular purpos e, 15 (2 ) w he the r the statut e ha s a pr im ar y ef fe ct that ne ith er advanc es re lig ionnor inh ibi ts 1 6 it, a n d( 3 ) w h e t h e r

t h e s t a tu t e a n di t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a v o i d s e x c e s s i v e g o v e rn m e nt 17 en ta ng le m en t wi th rel ig io n. Id

. a t 35 8- 59. T he Co urt no te d, a s in Allen I I , tha t the 18 Pe nnsy lvania

pr ogr am w as part of a pol ic y to le nd te xtb ooks to al l sc hool ch ildre n, the 19 fi nanc ia l be ne fi t i nur ed to the pare nts a nd c hil dr enr athe r than th e nonp ubl ic sc hool s,15

1 an d th e te xtb ooks to be loane d w er e ac ce pta ble f or the pub lic sc hool s and u se d on ly 2 fo r se cu la r pu rp os es . Mee k , 421 U. S. at 360-62. It r eiterate d that the consti tutio nal 3 pr obl em

“ is o ne of

de gr ee [, ] ” statin g th at

“ not a ll le gi sl at ive pr ogr am s th at pr ovi de 4 ind ir ec t or

i n c i d e n t a l b e n e f

i tt o ar e l i g i o u s i n s t i tu t i o n a r e p r o h i b i t e db y t he 5 Constitu tion.” Id

. at 359 (internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). The C ourt 6 tho ught oth er

w ise , how ev er , ab out the le ndi ng of ins tr uc tio na l m at eri al and 7 e qu i p m e n ts u c h a s m ap s , c h a rt s , a n dl ab o r a t o ry e qu i p m e n td i r e c t l y

t o n onpubli c 8 sc ho ol s ra th er t ha n t o t he st ud en ts . Id

. a t 36 2- 63, 365
. T he Co urt f ound 9 co nst itu tio na l f

au lt w iththe le gis la tio n be ca use it did not take int o a cc ount

that the 10 “ subs tanti al a m ount s of dir ec t su ppor t auth or iz ed ” w oul d m ak e it impossibl e “ to 11 se parate se cu lar ed

uc at ion al f

unc tio ns f ro m the pr ed om inantl y re lig iou s ro le ” of the 12 sc ho ol s. Id

. a t 36 5. 13 { 25} T he Uni te d St at es S upr em e Co urt a ga in c onsi de re d astatut or y te xtb ook 14 pr ogr am

in W olman v. W

alter , 43 3 U.S. 2 29 (19 77 ), ov errul ed byM itc he ll , 530 U. S. 15 79 3. The Co urt f

oll ow ed Allen I

I a nd Mee k
. W

olm an , 433 U
. S. a t 23 8. I t a lso 16 de te rm ine d th at

pr ovi sio ns o f the O hi o st at ute that pr ovi de d publi c funds fo r 17 standard iz ed te sts an d sc or ing se rv ic es ; sp ee chand h eari ng d ia gnos tic se rv ic es ; and 18 the ra pe uti c, gui danc e, a nd r em ed ia l se rv ic es w er e not co nst itu tio na lly ina ppr opr ia te16

1 but that th e lendi ng o f ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia ls and e qui pm en t t o st ude nts a nd the 2 fu nd in g o f fi el d t rip tra ns po rta ti on an d s erv ic es was. Id

. a t 23 9- 54. 3 { 26} In W

olm an , the S upr em e Co urt spe ci fi ca lly de cl ine d to ove rr ule the te xtb ook 4 rulings of Allen I

I a nd Mee k
. W

olm an , 433 U
. S. a t 23 8. I n M itc he ll , how ev er , it

did 5 ove rr u le Mee k

a nd W olm an w ithr es pe ct

to its pr ev iou s in str

uc tio na l m at er ia l and 6 eq ui pm en t ru li ng s. M itc he ll , 5 3 0 U
. S
. a t 8 0 8
. I n M itc he ll , the Co urt he ld tha t a 7 fe de ra l prog ram unde r w hic h stat e and loc al gove rn m en ta l age nc ie s r ec ei ve d f unds 8 to loan educ at ion al m at er ia ls and equip m en t to public an d pr iva te sc hool s ba se d on 9 en ro llm en t did not of

fe nd the E sta

bli shm en t Cl au se . Id

. at 801. A cc or din g to the 10 Court, the program

wa s neutral with re spect t o relig ion because it “ m akes a broad 11 array of schools eligi ble for aid w ithou t regard to their religious affiliations o r lack 12 thereof” and because “ [t] he aid follows the child.” Id

. a t 83 0. 13 { 27} A s d e mo n s t r a t e d b y Allen I I , Mee k , a nd W

olm an , t h e U n i t e dS t a t e s S up r e me 14 Co urt’ s ana ly sis und er the E sta bli shm en t C lause doe s no t suppor t P la int if fs ’ pos iti on 15 in this ca se . T he Co urt’ s ana ly sis fo cu se s upon the ne utr al ity of a ch al le nge d lawa nd 1 6 doe s n o ti n v a l i d a t e al a wt h a tap p l i e s n e u t r a l l y t o s tu d e n t s o f

p ub l i c a n dp r i v a te 17 sc hool s, ev en if the re m ay be a deg re e of be ne fi t tha t inur es to the pr iva te sc hool
. B ut 18 this ca se is base d on state constitu tional provision s, not on the Establishm ent Clause.17

1 W e thu s turnto the c as es c ite d by the part ie s an d the sta te c onst itu tio na l pr ovi sio ns 2 at iss ue in tho se c as es . 3 Cases A ddre ssing Other State Const itutional P rovisio ns 4 { 28} Pl ai nti ff

s r el y on f ive c as es that the y co nte nd inv olv e sim ilar iss ue s to A rt ic le 5 X II , S ec tio n 3 o f the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n. T he y f ir st r ef er to Ca li fo rnia 6 Teachers A ssociat ion v. R iles , 632 P.2 d 95 3 ( Ca l. 198 1)
. T ha t c as e inv olv ed a 7 ch al le nge to a Ca lif

or nia lawauth or iz ing the S upe ri nte nde nt o f Pu bli c In str uc tio n to 8 le nd t o stu de nts atte ndi ng nonp ro fi t, nonp ubl ic sc hool s te xtb ooks use d inthe pub lic 9 sc ho ol s wi th ou t ch arg e. Id

. a t 95 3. A rt ic le I X, S ec tio n 8 o f the Ca lif or nia 10 Constitu tion provided : “No pu blic m oney shall ever be appropriated for the support 11 of a ny se ct ar ian or

de nom ina tio na l sc hool , or a ny sc hool not

und er the e xc lus ive 12 control of the officers of the publ ic s ch o o ls[.] ” Riles , 632 P. 2d at 954 n.3 (internal 13 quot at ion m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). U nde r A rt ic le X V I, S ec tio n 5 o f the Ca lif or nia 14 Co nst itu tio n: 15 N ei the r the L eg isl at ur e, no r an y

c ounty , c ity

a nd c ounty , townshi p, 16 sc ho ol di str i c t , or othe r m un i c i pa l c or

po r a t i on , sh a l l e ve r

m ake an 17 ap pr opr ia tio n, or pay f ro m an y publ ic fund wh at ev er , or gr an t anythi ng 18 to o r in aid of an y re lig iou s sec t, chur ch , cr ee d, or se ct ar ian purp ose , or 19 he lp t o su

ppor t or sus ta in any

sc hool , c olleg e, uni ve rs ity , hos pit al , or 20 other instit ution controlled by any religious cree d, church, or sectar ian 21 denom ination whatever ; nor shall any gra n t o r donation o f personal 22 pr ope rty

or r ea l e state e ve r be m ad e by the state , or

a ny c ity , c ity a nd 23 co unty , town, or oth er m uni ci pa l c or

por at ionf

or a ny r el igi ous cr ee d, 24 ch ur ch , or s ect ari an pu rp os e wha te ve r[.]18

1 Riles , 632 P
. 2d a t 95 4 n. 4. 2 { 29} The C a l i f

or ni ac ourtd i sc us se d a ts om e l e ng t h U ni t e d S t a t e s S up r e m e Court 3 ca se s c onc er

nin g th e E sta

bli shm en t C la

use . I t i nde pe nde ntl y

de ci de d th at

the 4 te xt bo okpro gr am

co ul d n ot su r v i v e s t at e co ns ti tu ti on al scrut in y . Id

. a t 96 4. 5 Pe rs ua de d by

Jus ti ce Brennan’ s di sse nt i n Mee k , w hic h w as c ri tic al of the 6 ch ar ac te ri zatio n of

the te xt bo ok pro gr am

a s aloan to stu de nts , it

did not a cc ep t the 7 “ ch ild be ne fi t” the or

y that the pr ogr am

be ne fi tte d th e stu de nts a nd n ot the sc hool s or 8 th atth e b en efi t t o t he sch oo ls was o nl y in ci de nt al
. Riles , 632 P
. 2d at 96 0- 64. 9 { 30} Gaf

fne y v. Sta te D ep art

m en t of E duc ati on , 2 2 0 N
. W
. 2 d5 5 0 ( N e b
. 1 9 7 4) 10 addressed a b ro ad constitu tional prov ision with sim ilar language to Article XV I, 11 Sect io n 5 of

th e Cal ifo rn ia Co ns ti tu ti on . Gaffney , 220 N
. W
. 2d a t 55 2; Riles , 632 P
. 2d 12 at 964
. T he N eb ras ka Su pr em e Co urt r el ie d onthe br oa d langua ge of it s 1 3 co nst i tu t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n t o h o l d t h a t t h e t e x tb o o k l o a n p r o g r a m f u rn i s h e d “ a i d ” to 14 pr iv at e se ct ari an sch oo ls
. Gaffney , 220 N. W .2d at 552-54. It stated t h at, even 15 as sum ing ne utr al ity , the loan pr ogr am “ is f or the purpo se of

augm en tin g th e publ ic 16 sc hool se cu lar ed

uc at ionw ithr el igi ous tr ai nin g” a nd w as “ aidin g th e chur ch ” in 17 ad va nc in g re li gi ou s ed uc at io n. Id

. at 5 57. It further stated that the fact that the loan 18 of the te xtb ooks w as to the pare nts a nd s tud en ts w as not de te rm ina tiv e be ca

use the19

1 pr ogr am “ le nd s st re ngth and s uppo rt to the sc hool a nd, a lth oughind ir ec tly , le nds 2 strength and s uppo rt to the spon soring sectarian instit ution .” Id

. 3 { 31} In D ic km an v . Sc hool D istric t N

o. 62C , 366 P. 2d 5 33 ( O r. 196 1) ( enbanc ), the 4 Supr em e Co ur t o f Oreg on co ns id ered a te xt bo oklo an pro gr am in th e co nt ex t o f two 5 co nst itu tio na l pr ovi sio ns: one pr ohi bit ed in part m one y to be dr awn fr om

the state 6 treasury

“ for the benefit” o f an y re l igiou s or theolog ical institut ion; and the other 7 pr ovi de d th at

vari ous re ve nue sourc es “ sh all b e ex cl usi ve ly appl ie d to the sup port, 8 an d m ai nte nanc e of

c om m on s ch ool s in e ac h S ch ool dis tr ic t, a nd the pur ch as e of 9 su i t abl e l i br a r i e s, a nd app a r a tus t he r e f or .” Id

. at 535 nn. 2- 3, 537
. I t no te d th at the 10 fi rs t pr ovi sio n e xpr es se d “ in m or e spe ci fi c te rm s” the pol ic y of the F ir st A m en dm en t. 11 Id

. a t 53 7. L ike the Ca lif

or nia S upr em e Co ur

t, the O reg on co ur t re

j ec te d th e ch ild 12 be ne fit pri nc ip le
. Id

. a t 539, 543- 44. It sta te d that “ the a id i s e xte nde d to the pup il 1 3 onl y as a m e m

b e r o f t h e s c h o o l ” t h e p up i l a t t e n d s a n d , t h e r e b y , a l t h o u g h t h e p upi l 14 m ay sh are i n t he be ne fit , “ su ch aid is an ass etto ” th e sc ho ol
. Id

. a t 54 3. 15 { 32} B loo m v . Sc hool Co m m itt ee of S

pri ngf ie ld , 379 N
. E
. 2d 5 78 ( Ma ss. 197 8) , a nd 16 Pa s ter v. Tussey , 5 12 S
. W
. 2d 9 7 ( M o. 1 97 4) , a l so i nv ol ve p a rt i c ul a r c on st i tut i on al 17 pr ovi sio ns. T he Ma ssa chuse tts pr ovi sio n at iss ue in B loo m prohibit ed in relevant part 18 the “ gr an t, appr opr ia tio n or use of pub lic m on ey

. . . f or the pur

pose 19 of
. . . m ai nta ini ng o r ai din g any . . . sc ho ol, or

c hari ta ble or r el igi ous unde rt ak ing20

1 w hic h is not publ ic ly ow ne d and unde r the ex cl usi ve co ntr ol, or de r an d su pe rv isi on 2 of pub lic of fi ce rs . . . . ” 379 N
. E
. 2d a t 58 1, 585 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n 3 om itted). As stated by

the Paster

court, the M issou ri Constitut ion “ goes even farther 4 than tho se of som e other states” and is m ore re strictive than the Establishm ent Clause. 5 512 S.W .2d at 101-02 (internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). 6 { 33} T h e d i s tr i c tc o u rtd e t e rm i n e dt h a tt h e o u t - o f

- s t a t e c a s e s c i t e db y

D ef en da nts 7 provided m ore persuasive authority than those cited by Plaintiffs. De fendants cited 8 Board of Education of Ce n t r al Schoo l District No. 1 v. Allen ( A lle n I ), 228 N
. E
. 2d 9 791 (N
. Y
. 196 7) ; Ch anc e v. M iss iss ipp i State Te

xtbook R ati ng & P urc hasi ng B oard , 10 200 So
. 706 ( Mi ss. 1941 ) (i n banc ); a nd B orde n v . L oui sia na Stat e B oard

of 11 E duc ati on , 123 S o. 655 ( L a. 192 9)
. T he N ewY ork Co ur t of Appe al s in A lle n I

, in 12 re j ec tin g th e state c onst itu tio na l c ha lle nge , r ec ogni ze d th e le gis la tiv e int en t “ to 13 be sto wapub lic be ne fi t up on a ll sc hool c hil dr en , r eg ar dle ss o f the ir sc hool 14 af fi liatio ns. ” 228 N
. E
. 2d a t 794. It co nsi de re d any be ne fi t to par oc hia l scho ols to be 15 “ collateral. ” Id

. I n Chance , the Missis sippi Suprem e Court analy zed a c onsti tutio nal 16 provisi on that barred, sim ilarly t o Ar t icle X II, Sec tion 3 of the N ewMexico 17 Constitu tion, the appropriation o f funds “ toward the support of any sectarian 18 school[.] ” Chance , 200 S o. a t 70 7. It too not ed the duty of the state to ed

uc at e the 1 9 ch ildr e n o f

t h e s t a t e a n dc o n s i d e r e dt h e a i dt o t h e p a r o c h i a l s c h o o l s t o b e o n ly21

1 in ci de nt al
. Id

. a t 71 2- 13. It f

urthe r not ed

the non -s ec tari anc ont en t of the te xtb ooks 2 an d t he co nt in ue d c on tro l o ve r th em by t h e st at e. Id

. at 7 13
. Borden inv olv ed a 3 co nst itu tio na l pr ovi sio n li ke the r es tr icti ve Misso ur i on e ad dr es se d in Paster
. 4 Borden , 123 So . a t 660. N ev er the le ss, the L oui sianaS upr em e Co urt r ea ch ed a 5 co ntr ar y r es ult , statin g inpart

that the state a nd the c hil dr enw er e the be ne fi ci ar ie s of 6 the ap pr opr ia tio ns, not the sc hool s, w hic h w er e not “ re lie ve d of

asin gle obl iga tio n” 7 by the ap pr op ria ti on s. Id

. at 660-61
. The cases cited by De fendants w ere d ec ided 8 be fo re the U nit ed St at es Su pr em e Co urt a ddr es se d te xtb ook pr ogr am s inc onne ct ion 9 with the E stablish m ent Clause. 10 In te rp re ta ti on of

A rt ic le X II, S ec ti on 3 of t he N ew M ex ic o C on st it ut ion 11 { 34} A rt i c l e X I I , S e c t i o n 3 p r o h i b i t s t h e u s e o f s t a t e f u n d s f o r t h e s up p o rt of 12 sectarian, denom inat i o n al , and private schoo ls. I t wa s adopted, like sim ilar 13 pr ovi sio ns o f m an y st at es , inthe w ak e of the E sta bli shm en t C lause of

the F ir st 14 Am en dm en t. E

ve rso n , 3 3 0 U.S
. a t 1 3 -1 4 . In t h e U n i t ed St at es Su p re m e C o u rt ’s 15 int er pr et at ionof

the E sta bli shm en t C lause , pr ogr am s su cha s th e IML are no t 16 pr ohi bit ed
. T he state s th at ha ve int er

pr et ed the ir c onst itu tio na l pr ovi sio ns h av e 17 re ac he d c onf

lic tin g r es ult s. I n int er

pr et ing A rt ic le X II , Se ct ion 3, w e ar e not bound 18 by a ny of the se str ai ns o f ca se s and, e ve n th oughN ewMe xic o, an d the oth er state s, 19 have fo l l o we d t he concepts of the United States C onsti tutio n, w e m ay interpret22

1 Arti cl e XII, Sec ti on 3 d iff eren tl y . Se e N. M

. Right t o C

hoos e/ NA R A L v. J ohns on , 2 1999
- N M S C
- 0 0 5 , ¶ 2 8 , 1 2 6 N
. M
. 7 8 8 , 9 7 5 P
. 2 d 8 4 1 ( N A RA L ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t ou r 3 Suprem e Court m ay “ u ndertake independent analy sis of our state constit ution al 4 guara nte es ” (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks and ci tatio n om itt ed ))
. W e m ay , ne ve rthe le ss, 5 lookto cases of either the United States Suprem e Court or the courts of other states 6 for guidance. Moreover, this Court has o bserved that because the goals of Article II, 7 Se ct ion11 o f the N ew Me xic o Cons tit uti on ser ve the sa m e goa ls as the F re e E xe rc ise 8 and Establishm ent Clauses of t he First Am endm ent, New Mexico courts have cited 9 Fi rs t A m en dm en t c as es to ad dr es s bo th the U nit ed S ta te s and sta te c onst itu tio ns. 10 Elane Photo grap hy, L LC v. W illock , 20 12 -NMCA- 08 6, ¶ 3 3, 2 84 P
. 3 d 42 8, aff’d , 11 20 13 -NMSC -0 4 0 , 3 0 9 P .3d 53 , cert. denied , 134 S
. Ct
. 178 7 ( 2014 ). W e se e no 1 2 r e a s o n t o t r e a tAr t i c l e XI I , S e c t i o n 3 d i f f e r e n t l y. 13 { 35} A n e sse nti al dif fe re nc e be tw ee n th e U nit ed St at es Su pr em e Co urt ca se s and the 14 ca se s c ite d by

P la int if fs is the ap pr oa ch to the publ ic be ne fi t of te xtb ook pr ogr am s. 15 The princ ipl e unde rl y ing suc h pr ogr am s is the pub lic obl iga tio n to e duc at e al l 16 ch il dr en reg ard le ss of wher e th ey

att en d s ch oo l. Se e, e . g. , Allen I I , 392 U
. S. a t 24 3 17 (s ta tin g that th e pu rp ose of the N ewY ork te xtb ook laww as to furthe r “ the 18 ed uc at ion al opp ortun iti es a va ila ble to the y oung . . . . T he lawm er el y m ak es a va ila

ble 19 to a ll c hil dr enthe be ne fi ts o f a ge ne ra l pr ogr am to le nd s ch ool boo ks f re e of23

1 ch ar ge . ”)
. I n P la int if

fs ’ c as es , th e co urts h av e he ld tha t the pr ogr am s do not onl y 2 be ne fit th e ch il dr en an d t he ir p aren ts , bu t al so th e p riv a te , par oc hi al sch oo ls . As 3 state d in Riles , te xtbo oks are “ a basic educational too l .” 632 P.2d at 963 (internal 4 quot at ionm ar

ks and ci ta tio n om itt ed ). A s di sc uss ed in Gaffney , a nd quot ed

in Riles , 5 beca u s e “ o n e of the m ain purpos es of the parent sending his child to a parochial 6 school is to insu re the e arly inculcation of religion [, ] ” even if te xtbo oks are secular, 7 the loan of

te xtb ooks to stu de nts “ is f or the pur pose of augm en tin g th e publ ic sc hool 8 secular training with religious training.” Gaffney , 220 N
. W
. 2d at 557; Riles , 632 P
. 2d 9 at 964, n 15 (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ); se e als o D ic km an , 366 10 P. 2d a t 54 4 ( not ing that t ex tbo oks ar e an“ int eg ra l pa rt of the ed uc at io nal pr oc es s” 11 and that the teaching of religiou s pr ec ep t s i s an inseparable part of the educational 12 process in the schoo l at issue). 13 { 36} W e ar e not

pe rs ua de d th at

the c as es c ite d by Pl ai nti ff s shou ld be f

oll ow ed in 14 thi s c as e. W e be lie ve that the le gis la tiv e int en t i n pr om oti ng the ed uc ationof a ll 15 sc hool ch ildre n inN ewMe xic o de se rv es gr eate r w ei ght than th e cas es c ite d by 16 Pl ai nti ff

s a ff or d. D es pit e Jus tic e Br en nan’ s di sse nt i n Mee k, r el ie d up on i n Riles , the 17 U nit ed

S ta te s Su pr em e Co urt ha s re pe at ed ly r ec ogni ze d th e ge ne ra l, pub lic na tur e of 18 suc h pr ogr am s and h as de cl ine d to hol d th at “ the pr oc es se s of

se cu lar an d r el igi ous 19 tr ai nin g are so i nte rtw ine d th at se cu lar te xtb ooks f

ur nis he d to stu de nts by

the pub lic24

1 are in f act instrum ental in the te aching of religion.” Allen I I , 392 U
. S. a t 24 8; Mee k , 2 421 U
. S. a t 36 0- 62; W olm an , 4 3 3 U.S . at 257. Under the IML , the instructional 3 m at er ia l i s stri ct ly

se cu lar. S ec tio n 22 -1 5-9( C). Pla int if fs did not pr es en t any 4 evidence to dem onstrate that the secular m aterials ar e used in a non-secular m anner. 5 See A llen II

, 392 U
. S. a t 24 8 ( not ing that the r ec ord onsum m ar y j udgm en t di d no t 6 supp ort that the textboo ks were used to su pport religion ). 7 { 37} A s part

of it s ana ly sis r ej ec tin g the “ ch ild be ne fi t” pr inc ipl e, the Ca lif or nia 8 co urt i n Riles stated that it could n ot harm onize the reasoning of Allen I I , Mee k , a nd 9 W olm an w ithr eg ar d to the loan of oth er ins tr

uc tio na l m at er ia l su cha s m ap s, glo be s, 10 an d c ha rts . Riles , 632 P. 2d at 960 -61. Indeed, the United States Suprem e Court has 1 1 ha d d i f

f i c u l t y r e a c h i n g h a rm o n y i n t h i s r e g a r d
. H o w e v e r , s u c h a d i s h a rm o n yno 12 long er exists in the United States Suprem e Court j urisprudence since the Court stated 13 in M itc he ll that Mee k

a n d W ol m an w er e “ no l onge r good law ” in this r eg ar d. 14 M itc he ll , 530 U
. S. a t 80 8. 15 { 38} Mor eo ve r, not onl y is the U nit ed S ta te s S upr em e Co urt no wc le ar in its a na ly sis 16 tha t t ex tbo ok and i nstru ct ion al m at er ia l pr ogr am s th at be ne fi t a ll ch ildre n r eg ar dle ss 17 of the school of their attendance do no t conflict with the E stablish m ent Clause, since 18 Riles , it has also upheld the cons titutio nality of other govern m en tal program s that 19 be ne fit all st ud en ts , in cl ud in g t ho se who att en d p riv at e an d p aro ch ia l s ch oo ls
. See25

1 Ze lm an v . Sim m ons-H

arr is , 536 U
. S. 639, 645, 662 (2 002) (c onc lud ing tha t a lawin 2 w hic h th e state of

O hio c re at ed

apr ogr am

that pr ovi de d tu iti on a ssi stanc e to p ar en ts 3 o f e l i g i b l e ch i l d re n t o at t en d a p ar t i ci p at i n g p ub l i c o r p ri v at e s ch o o l o f t h e p ar en t ’s 4 ch oosi ng w as “ en tir el y ne utr al w ithr es pe ct

to religion” a nd d id n ot v iol at e the 5 E sta bli shm en t C laus e); M

itc he ll , 530 U
. S. a t 79 3 ( upho ldi ng p ro gr am le ndi ng 6 ed uc at ion al m at er ia ls and e qui pm en t to publ ic a nd p ri va te sc hool s ba se d on 7 en ro llm en t) ; A gost iniv . F el ton , 5 21 U
. S. 203 , 209 -1 0, 240 ( 1997 ) (h old ing that a 8 federa lly -funded program in which public school teac hers prov i d ed rem edial 9 ed uc at ionto dis advanta ge d chil dr en in par oc hia l scho ols a s w el l a s pu bli c sc hool s di d 10 not vio la te the E sta

bli shm en t C lause ); Zo brest v. Ca tal ina F oothil ls S ch

. D ist
. , 509 11 U. S. 1 (1993) (hold ing th at the E stablish m ent Clause does not bar local school d istrict 12 fr om providin g a publicly -em ploy ed interpreter for a dea f student in a parochial 13 school). 14 { 39} T he Uni te d S ta te s S upr em e Co urt ha s ina ddi tio n r ep eate dly state d th at

the 15 co ns ti tu ti on al is su e in vo lv e d i n t h e se types of p ro gr am s i s o ne of d eg ree. Allen I I , 16 392 U
. S. a t 24 2; Mee k , 421 U. S. at 359. W e agre e. In this regard, we do not interpret 17 A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3 t o pr ohi bit ind ir ec t and i nc ide nta l be ne fi t w he n th e le gis la tiv e 18 purpos e does not focus on suppo rt of parochial or p ri v at e s ch ools. W e w ould rea d 19 too m uc h i nt o t he r e c or d of

t hi s c a se t o c on c l ud e t hatt he l oan of i ns t r uc t i on al26

1 m aterial to students un der the IML is so inext ricably intertwined t h at t he IML 2 ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l i s in str um en ta l i n th e re lig iou s e duc at io n. O ur f oc us i s 3 therefore whether the IML provides im perm issib le other suppo rt of a f inancial nature. 4 Inc ontra st, the ev ide nc e in Riles indicated that without th e loan program parochial 5 sc hool s purc ha se d th ei r ow n te xtb ooks a nd charg ed the pare nts a re nta l f ee . 632 P
. 2d 6 at 956. T here is no sim ilar evidence in this case. 7 { 40} N ev er

the le ss, ev en if w e w er e to a ssu m e a sim ilar ar range m en t, the f

oc us o f the 8 IM L is to p ro vid e ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l f

or the be ne fi t of

stu dent s. S ec tio n 22 -1 5- 9 7( A ). I t i s se cu lar in n at ur e. S ec tio n 22-1 5- 9( C). Pr iva te sc hool s do not ow n th e 10 in st ru ct io na l m at eri al , and th e st at e co nt ro ls it s us e an d d is po si ti on . See S ec tio n 22
- 11 15-10(D), (E ) (r equiring priv ate schools to return to th e D epartm ent m oney collected 12 fo r sa le , los s, da m ag e, or de str uc tio n of ins tr uc tio na l m at eri al a s w el l a s any 13 instructio nal m at er i al in usable cond ition for which there is no expected use). 14 A lth oughpr iva te sc hool s m ai nta in a pos se sso ry

c ontro l, the y

do so as age nts fo r the ir 15 stu de nts . S ec tio n 22 -1 5- 7( B). The ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l i s, of

c our se , use d inthe 16 sc hool s f

or the be ne fi t of the stu de nts , a nd the sc hool s th er eb y r ec ei ve som e be ne fi t. 17 But the parents of the student s bear the financial burden of providi ng the ins tructional 18 m at er ia l and are the dir ec t re ci pie nts of the pr ogr am ’ s fi nanc ia l supp ort. T his c as e is 19 not lik e Ze lle rs in w hic h ther e w as an ap pare nt inf ri nge m en t of the pur

pose of A rt ic le27

1 XI I, Sec tion 3 “ to insu re e xclusiv e co n trol by the state over our public educational 2 sy stem [. ] ” P ri nc e , 1 975- N MS C- 068, ¶ 20. T he be ne fi t t o th e sc hool s is not of the 3 de gr ee that f

al ls w ith in A rt ic le X II , S ec tio n 3. 4 A rt ic le IX , S ec ti on 14 o f th e N ew M ex ic o C on st it ut ion 5 { 41} A rt ic le I X , S ec tio n 14 , the A nti -D ona tio n C lause , pr ovi de s inr el ev an t part : 6 N e i t h e r

t h e s t a t e n o r

a n y c o u n t y, s c h o o l d i s t r i c to r mun i c i p a l i t y, 7 ex ce pt a s othe rw ise pr ovi de d inthi s c onst itu tio n, sha ll dir ec tly or 8 ind ir ec tly

le nd o r ple dge it s c re dit

or m ak e an y donatio n to or in a id o f 9 an y

pe rs on , ass oc ia ti on or p ub li c o r pr iv at e co rp or at io n . . . . 1 0 Ap p e l l an t s , qu o t i n g f r o m V i l l a g e o f D e m i n g v . H

o sdr eg Co

. , contend that the IML 11 violates thi s provisi on because “ the lending of fr ee textbooks and other instructio nal 12 m at er ia ls at pu

bli c ex pe nse to pr iva te sc hool s c onst itu te s a ‘ donatio n to or in ai d of 13 [a ] pe rs on, a sso ci at ionor pub lic or pr iva te co rp or at ion
. ’ ” 1956 -N MS C- 111, ¶ 36, 62 14 N
. M. 18, 303 P
. 2d 9 20. 15 { 42} In V

illage of D em ing , our Suprem e Cou rt add ressed A rticle IX , S ection 14. In 16 that case, the Village of De m ing, following a rece ntly -enacte d statute, had passed an 17 or din an ce to iss ue r ev enue bon ds t o f inanc e a m anuf

ac tur ing pr oj ec t tha t the V ill ag e 18 w o u l d i n t urn l eas e to a pr iv at e co m pa ny. Id

. ¶ ¶ 4, 5, 21. T he c om

pla int a lle ge d a 19 vio la tio n of

A rt ic le I X , S ec tio n 14 be ca use the r ev enue bon ds i ssu ed unde r the statut e 20 and the ordinance “ would constitu te the giving of aid to private enterprise. ” Id

. ¶ 30 21 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T he Co urt no te d th at the langua ge28

1 of the c om pla int dif fe re d f ro m the c onst itu tio na l pr ohi bit ionthat, as al so r el ev an t t o 2 th e cas e b efo re us, forb id s a “ do na ti on to or i n a id of” a pr iv at e co rp or at io n. Id

. ¶ 31 3 (i nte rn al quo tati on m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T he Co urt c onstru ed adon at ion 4 unde r A rt ic le I X , Se ct ion 14 to be “ a gif t, a n a llo catio n or

appr opr ia tio n of

som ethin g 5 of va lue , w ith out

c onsi deratio n to ape rs on, a sso ci at ionor pub lic or

pr iva te 6 corporation.” Id

. ¶ 36 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks o m itt ed ); see also Sta te ex re l. O ffice 7 of State E

ng’ r v . L ew is , 2 0 0 7
- N M C A
- 0 0 8 , ¶ 4 9 , 1 4 1 N
. M
. 1 , 1 5 0 P
. 3 d 3 7 5 ( ci tin g 8 V illage of D em ing for the definition of a donatio n under Article IX , Section 14). It 9 he ld th at th e st atut e au th or iz in g th e rev en ue bo nd s d id no t en ta il su ch a “ do na ti on .” 10 W ithr es pe ct

to the langua ge of

the c om pla int , it de cl ine d to c onc lud e tha t the statut e 11 pr ovi de d f

or a n un co nstitu tio na l vi ola tio n e ve n if the re w as “ inc ide nta l a id o r 12 re sul tant b en ef

it to a pr iva te c or

por at ion ” tha t di d no t “ ta ke on ch ar ac te r as adon at ion 13 in sub stance or ef

fect. ” V ill

. of D em ing , 195 6- N MS C- 111, ¶ ¶ 34, 37. 14 { 43} Appl y ing V

illage of D em ing to this ca se , w e se e no c onst itu tio na l i nf irm ity in 15 the I ML
. T he re is no “ donatio n” to a pr iva te sc hool be ca use the re is ne ith er

a“ gif t” 16 no r an “ al loc at ionor

appr opr ia tio n of

som ethin g of

va lue , w ith out

c onsi de ratio n.” 17 Id

. ¶ 36. 18 { 44} As to a gift, althoug h private schools rec eive possessi on of the inst ructional 19 m at er ia l, the y

ne ve r ha ve a n own er shi p in te re st i n it
. T he y r ec ei ve pos se ssi on o nly29

1 as agents for their students. Se ction 22 -15-7(B). T hey m ay sell instruction al m aterial 2 onlywith approval of the director of the De partm ent’ s instructio nal m aterial burea u 3 an d m ust re tur n al l pr oc ee ds fr om sa le s an d m oni es co lle ct ed fo r los t, da m ag ed , a nd 4 de str oy ed

it em s to the D ep ar

tm en t. Sec tio n 22 -1 5- 2( B) , - 10( A ), ( D ). T he 5 De p artm ent m ay

require them

to return to the Depar

tm ent any usable instructio nal 6 m aterial that they

no long er intend to use. Se ction 22 -15-10(E)
. Ther e is thus no gift 7 o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l mat e r i a l a s c o n t e mp l a t e db y V illage of D em ing
. 8 { 45} N or

is the re a n a llo catio n or appr opr ia tio n of

som ethin g of

va lu e, w ith out 9 co nsi de ratio n. A s w e ha ve dis cu sse d, the I ML auth or iz es the dis tr ibu tio n of 10 ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l to priv at e sc hool s only as ag en ts fo r the ir stu de nts . S ec tio n 22
- 11 15-7(B). W ith this distribu tion, althoug h the priva t e s ch ools m ay rec eive an 12 “ al loc at ion , ” it is o nly a s ac ondu it fo r the ir

stu de nts , w ho, pr es um ab ly , w oul d 13 otherwise need to pay for instructional m aterial. Sec tion 2 2-15-9(A). 14 { 46} O urS up r e m e C o u rt h a s a l s o s t a t e d t h a t A rt i c l e I X , S e c t i o n 1 4 “ s h o u l d be 15 construed with refe rence to the evils it w as intended to corre ct.” City of Clovis v. Sw. 16 P ub. Se rv . Co

. , 194 5- N MS C- 030, ¶ 23, 49 N
. M. 270 , 161 P
. 2d 8 78. S uc h e vil s 17 oc curred when pu

bli c bodi es loane d th ei r cr ed it to, or obt ai ne d an in te re st i n, 18 co m m er ci al e nti tie s th at

ult im at el y

r equir ed the pub lic to as sum e re spon sib ili tie s f or 19 th ei r ob li ga ti on s t o t h e d e t riment o f th e p ub li c fi sc . Id

. ¶¶ 23-24. No such danger30

1 exists du e to the IML
. The S tate has not loaned its cre dit or obtain ed any financial 2 int er es t i n any

pr iva te sc hool
. 3 { 47} T he abse nc e of

a ny le ndi ng of cr ed it al so d ist ing uis he s H utc heson v. A the rto n , 4 1940 -N MSC- 001 , 4 4 N
. M
. 1 44 , 9 9 P
. 2d 4 62 , r e l i e d up onb y

P l a i nt i f f s. I nd e e d, as 5 state d by

P la int if fs , o ur S upr em e Co urt i n H utc heson af

fi rmedt h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 6 finding that a cou nty ’ s issui ng bo nds to finance an audito rium for the purposes of a 7 pr iv at e co rp or at io n v io la te d Ar ti cl e IX, Sect io n 1 4. H utc heson , 194 0- N MS C- 001, 8 ¶¶ 34- 35, 37. B ut the co unty ’ s in ap pr opr ia te a ct ionin H utc heson wa s its propo sed 9 le nd in g o f it s cr ed it th ro ug h t he is su an ce o f bo nd s. Id

. ¶ 1. T he pr ovi sio n of

A rt ic le 10 IX , S ec tio n 14 a t i ssu e in this c as e pe rt ai ns to a pr ohi bit ed donatio n, not the le ndi ng 11 orpl ed gi ng of c red it . It d oe s n ot in vo lv e a p ro hi bi t eddo na ti on un de r Arti cl e IX, 12 Se ct ion14. 13 { 48} W e not e tha t I nte rv en or s arg ue tha t A rt ic le IX , Se ct ion 14, as w el l a s A rt ic le 14 XI I, Sec tion 3 and Ar ticle IV , Section 31, do not apply to the I ML because the IML 15 is fun de d b y

th e New Mex ic o Leg is la tu re wi th fed eral MLLA fun ds . Becau se we 16 hol d th at the IM L doe s not vio la te the se co nst itu tio na l pr ovi sio ns, w e do n ot a ddr es s 17 thi s arg um en t.31

1 A rt ic le IV , S ec ti on 31 o f th e N ew M ex ic o C on st it ut ion 2 { 49} A rt ic le IV , Se ct ion 31 pro hib its appr opr ia tio ns “ fo r ch ar ita ble , e duc at ion al or 3 oth er be ne vol en t purp ose s to a ny pe rs on, c or

por at ion , a sso ci at ion , ins tit uti on o r 4 co m m uni ty , not und er the absol ute co ntr ol of the sta te [. ] ” Pl ai nti ff s as se rt tha t the use 5 of publ ic , state funds to fi nanc e the IM L is unc onst itu tio na l to the ext en t su chf unds 6 supp ort se ct ar ian or

de nom ina tio na l pr iva te sc hool s. 7 { 50} Plaintiffs, however, have not dem onstrated that fund s used to su pport the IML 8 ar e not w ith in the c ontro l of

the state . U nde r the IM L , ap pr opr ia tio ns ar e m ad e to the 9 D ep ar tm en t’ s ins tr

uc tio na l m at er ia l fund, cr eate d by the state tr ea sur er . S ec tio n 22
- 10 15- 5( A ). D isb ur se m en ts fr om the ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l fund ar e m ad e “ by w ar rant 11 of the de partm en t of

f inanc e an d a dm in is tra tio n up on v ouc he rs iss ue d by ” the 12 D ep ar tm en t. S ec tio n 22 -1 5- 6. T he D ep ar tm en t m akes pa y m ent t o an in -s ta te 13 de posi tor

y f or ins tr uc tio na l m at er ia l di str ibu te d to pr iva te sc hool s a s a ge nts f or the ir 14 stu de nts . Se ct ion s 22- 15- 7( B) , -9 (E ). N o funds ar e ap pr opr ia te d to anyprivat e 15 sc hool
. T he m er e ind ir ec t or inc ide nta l be ne fi t t o th e pr iva te sc hool s do es not vio la te 16 Arti cl e IV, Sect io n 3 1. Cf

. Sta te e x re l. I nte rst ate Str ea m Co m m ’n v . R ey nolds , 196 3- 17 N MS C- 023, ¶

17 , 7 1 N.M. 389 , 378 P
. 2d 6 22 ( hol din g th at inc ide nta l be ne fi ts t o a 18 non- pr of

it or ganiz at ion fr om ap pr opr ia tio ns m ad e to the state e ngi ne er w ithabsol ute 19 control of the expendit ure does not vio late A rticle IV , S ection 31).32

1 { 51} Pl ai nti ff

s r el y on H arr ing ton v . A tte be rry , 191 5- N MS C- 058, 21 N
. M. 50, 153 2 P. 104 1, to co nte nd tha t the I ML is in “ dir ec t c onf lic t” w ithA rt ic le I V , S ec tio n 31
. 3 H arr ing ton , how ever, is not on poin t. In that case, our Suprem e Court held that an 4 ap p r o p r i a t i o n t o a p r i v a t e c o r p o r a t i o n f

o r t h e p u r

p o s e o f c o n du c t i n g a c ount yf ai r 5 vi ol at edth e New Mex ic o C on st it ut io n. Id

. ¶¶ 1, 63. A lth oughthe c onc ur ri ng o pin ion 6 w oul d have r el ie d onA rt ic le IV , Se ct ion 31, the opi nio n of the Co urt a ddr es se d on ly 7 Arti cl e IX, Sect io n 1 4. Id

. ¶¶ 6, 66-67 (Hanna, J., concurring in result). 8 A rt ic le II, S ec ti on 11 o f th e N ew M ex ic o C on st it ut ion 9 { 52} A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 11 state s: 10 No person sha l l b e requ ired to attend any place of w orship o r support 11 an y re lig iou s sec t or den om ina tio n; nor sha ll an y pr ef er en ce be giv enby 12 lawto an y

r el igi ous de nom ina tio n or m ode of w or shi p. 13 Pl ai nti ff

s arg ue that the I ML vio la te s A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 11
. 14 { 53} Thi s Co urt ha s st at ed that A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 11 se rv es the sa m e goa ls a s th e 15 Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se an d th e Free Exe rci se Cl au se of th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t. E lan e 16 Pho tograph

y , 2 0 1 2
- N M C A
- 0 8 6 , ¶ 3 3
. A s a r e s u l t , N e w M e x i c o c o u rt s ha ve 17 dis cu sse d A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 11 a nd the Fi rs t A m en dm en t t oge the r, c iti ng f ed er al c as e 18 la w i n co nn ect io n wit h Art ic le II, Sect io n 1 1. E lan e P hot ogra phy , 201 2- N MC A -0 86, 19 ¶ 33. I ndeed, N ew Mexico courts m ay “ diverge from

feder al prece dent” and afford 20 gr eat er p ro te ct io ns un de r pr ov is io ns of t he New Mex ic o C on st it ut io n. NARAL , 199 9-33

1 NMS C-005, ¶ 28 (internal quot ation m ar ks and citation om itted). H owever , P laintiffs 2 ha ve not

a rg ue d a b as is to do s o. A s w e ha ve dis cu sse d inc onne ct ionw ithA rt ic le 3 XI I, Sec tion 3 and the Establishm ent Clause, the United States S uprem e Court does 4 not in terpret the F irst Am end m ent to prohib it program s such as thos e contained 5 wit hi n t he IML. 6 CON CLU SION 7 { 54} W e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t t o D ef

en dants . 8 { 55} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
9

____ ___ __ ________ ____ ____ ____ ___ 10 JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg e
11 WE CO NCUR:
12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 13 M IC HA EL D . BU ST A M A N TE , Ju dg e
14

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 15 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e