Opinion ID: 1147963
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Validity of Declaratory Judgment Action Against State Officials.

Text: One question remains and that respects the making of the State Board of Education and its members and the Educational Budget Auditor parties defendant in the case. On hearing of a motion to dismiss as to these defendants, words were deleted from the complaint so as to leave them named solely as individuals, and the case proceeded to trial and judgment in that manner. The decree as it related to the State Board of Education and Educational Budget Auditor has been set out above. We say without qualification that the provisions of the decree under which these defendants were enjoined are correct if the trial court had jurisdiction to render them in a declaratory judgment action. We held, however, in Taos County Board of Education v. Sedillo, 44 N.M. 300, 101 P.2d 1027, that such an action could not be maintained against a state officer without the consent of the State of New Mexico and no consent was given for the present suit. Although after amendment the complaint purports to be against the members of the State Board of Education (only two of whom are still in office) and the Educational Budget Auditor solely as individuals, it was in effect a suit against them as state officers and against state agencies. Vigil v. Penitentiary of New Mexico, 52 N.M. 224, 195 P.2d 1014. The injunction against these defendants must be dissolved. We are advised the State Board of Education has by rule complied with the decree and in view of our declarations on the subject it is unlikely it will rescind or fail to enforce them. In declaring the trial court correctly interpreted the law in enjoining these defendants, if there was jurisdiction to do so, we are departing from our rule of not making such declarations unless the matter is before us for decision. We do so only because of the grave importance of the matters involved, as was done by this court in First National Bank of Raton v. McBride, 20 N.M. 381, 149 P. 353. Our holding on this point in no manner affects the remainder of the unreversed part of the decree or its binding effect on the other defendants.