Opinion ID: 1387131
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: new mexico statutory authority

Text: In Willis v. Fordice, 850 F.Supp. 523 (S.D.Miss.1994), aff'd, 55 F.3d 633 (1995) (No. 94-60299), the court upheld the governor's authority to enter into a gaming compact. There, however, the court specifically relied on a Mississippi statute that provides the governor with authority to transact  `all the business of the state . . . with any other state or territory.' Id. at 532 (quoting Miss.Code Ann. § 7-1-13 (1972)). New Mexico has no such statute. In fact, in this case the Governor relies primarily on Article V, Section 4 of the New Mexico Constitution, which provides only that the governor shall execute the laws. To the extent that the Governor does rely on statutory authority, his reliance is misplaced. An analysis of the Joint Powers Agreement Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 11-1-1 to -7 (Repl.Pamp.1994), indicates that that statute does not enlarge the Governor's authority in the manner that he urges. That statute authorizes public agencies to enter into agreements with other public agencies. Id. § 11-1-3. The statute defines a public agency as the federal government or any federal department or agency, this state, an adjoining state or any state department or agency, an Indian tribe or pueblo, a county, municipality, public corporation or public district of this state or ... any school district.... Id. § 11-1-2(A). The Governor's claim of authority seems to be premised upon the notion that he is a state department or agency within the meaning of this statute. [6] This claim is untenable. To be sure, the Joint Powers Agreement Act does authorize an agreement between the State and a sovereign Indian tribe. However, the statute expressly requires that such an agreement must be authorized by [the public agency's] legislative or other governing bod[y]. Id. § 11-1-3. This language plainly mandates that the legislature must approve any agreement to which the State is a party. The statute expressly disclaims any enlargement of the authority of public agencies when it provides that agreements executed thereunder are subject to any constitutional or legislative restriction imposed upon any of the contracting public agencies. Id. § 11-1-2(B). We conclude that the Joint Powers Agreement Act does not provide authority for the compacts and revenue-sharing agreements at issue. Likewise, the Mutual Aid Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 29-8-1 to -3 (Repl. Pamp.1994), does not provide authority for the compacts and revenue-sharing agreements. That statute does authorize tribal-state agreements; however, the scope of the statute is confined to agreements ... with respect to law enforcement. Id. § 29-8-3. It is true that the compacts have some provisions regarding law enforcement, but this fact does not bring all of the terms within the scope of the Mutual Aid Act. The authority of an executive acting pursuant to a legislative grant of authority is limited to the express or implied terms of that grant. See Worthington v. Fauver, 88 N.J. 183, 440 A.2d 1128, 1140 (1982). Cf. Rivas v. Board of Cosmetologists, 101 N.M. 592, 593, 686 P.2d 934, 935 (1984) (an executive agency cannot promulgate a regulation that is beyond the scope of its statutory authority); State ex rel. Lee v. Hartman, 69 N.M. 419, 426, 367 P.2d 918, 923 (1961) (holding that a delegation of authority by the legislature must be express and provide clear statutory standards to guide the delegee). The Mutual Aid Act does not in any way pertain to gaming compacts and provides no statutory basis for the compact with Pojoaque Pueblo.