Trainer-VS.-Steward Spat Yields New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion on Immunity in Certain Civil Rights Suits

[Wandering Eyes]

A Thoroughbred and Quarter Horse trainer's argument with a New Mexico state steward in 2021 over a licensing dispute that got escalated all the way up that state's Supreme Court has resulted in a ruling issued Monday establishing that New Mexico's governmental organizations can be immune from liability in civil rights lawsuits if they are carrying out administrative actions that are judicial in nature.

According to an opinion issued June 2 by the Supreme Court of New Mexico in a case involving Bradley Bolen vs. the New Mexico Racing Commission (NMRC), the state's Civil Rights Act (CRA) “expressly preserves judicial immunity as a defense. Judicial immunity is justified by public policies supporting independent decision-making and ensuring the integrity of a judicial or quasi-judicial process. These policies apply to both individuals and governmental entities performing judicial functions.”

However, just because the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that judicial immunity can, in theory, be used as a defense by the racing commission, it didn't rule as to whether that immunity actually applied to the NMRC in this specific instance.

In that respect, the court sent the case back to a district court to decide “whether and to what extent NMRC is immune using the framework set forth in this opinion.”

The case began in July 2021, when Bolen got into an argument over the telephone with a NMRC state steward after learning that an assistant trainer whom Bolen wished to employ would not have his license reinstated after a lengthy period of suspension.

The Supreme Court's opinion stated that “the parties do not dispute that Bolen criticized the steward during the phone call.”

The NMRC then asserted that Bolen's phone manners had transgressed regulations prohibiting “conduct or reputation [which] may adversely reflect on the honesty and integrity of horse racing or interfere with the orderly conduct of a race meeting.”

A panel of three stewards presided over an evidentiary hearing on the alleged infraction and  found that Bolen violated the conduct rule. They fined him $500, but stipulated that the fine would be waived so long as Bolen had no additional violations within one year.

“Bolen appealed the ruling under regulations that entitle him to a de novo hearing before an independent administrative hearing officer,” the Supreme Court opinion stated. “Bolen also sued NMRC in the district court, asserting a claim under the CRA for a violation of his rights to free speech and due process under Article II, Sections 17 and 18 of the New Mexico Constitution.

“Bolen alleged that NMRC pursued the disciplinary proceeding in retaliation for his protected speech with the steward and for a previous, unrelated lawsuit he had filed against NMRC's Executive Director. Bolen ultimately withdrew his administrative appeal, choosing only to pursue litigation in the district court,” the opinion stated.

The NMRC countered with a claim that its “quasi-judicial administrative actions” in pursuing the disciplinary proceeding entitled it to absolute immunity from Bolen's CRA claim.

The district court refused to extend that quasi-judicial immunity to the commission. The NMRC appealed, and a state appeals court eventually concluded that the district court had erred because the “plain language” of the law confirmed that judicial immunity is available to a public body in defense of a CRA claim.

So after the appeals court reversed the district court, Bolen petitioned the state's Supreme Court, which then issued the June 2 opinion, nearly four years after the original dispute over the phone.

“We answer: Yes, a public body may raise judicial immunity as an affirmative defense to claims brought pursuant to the CRA,” the Supreme Court opinion stated.

“We explain that judicial immunity, which applies to judges, advocates, and witnesses, may be consistently applied under the CRA to preserve the role of the judiciary in protecting a person's constitutional rights,” the opinion stated.

“We also articulate a framework for determining when that defense applies to quasi-judicial adjudicatory proceedings in the executive branch,” the opinion stated.

“However, as the record and arguments presented here are insufficient to resolve the question of NMRC's entitlement to immunity, we reverse the Court of Appeals to the extent it held that NMRC is immune from Bolen's CRA claim. We remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” the Supreme Court opinion stated.

“We also emphasize that judicial immunity should extend no further than necessary to achieve the policy goals of protecting independent decision-making and ensuring the integrity of an established adjudicatory process,” the opinion stated.

“A court considering a public body's entitlement to judicial immunity should, therefore, carefully parse the challenged conduct to determine whether and to what extent that conduct consists of a judicial function. Judicial immunity will protect a public body from liability only when the nature of the proceeding and the nature of the challenged conduct merit absolute protection from suit,” the Supreme Court opinion stated.

The post Trainer-VS.-Steward Spat Yields New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion on Immunity in Certain Civil Rights Suits appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

View the full article