## Facts

- The New Mexico Attorney General, acting on relation of the State, challenged actions by the Governor concerning the execution of tribal–state gaming compacts related to casino-style gambling.
- The dispute centered on whether the Governor could enter compacts that committed the State to a regulatory and policy framework for gaming without specific legislative authorization.
- The case proceeded in the New Mexico Supreme Court as an original action seeking extraordinary relief to restrain or invalidate the Governor’s actions on state constitutional grounds.
- Federal law (the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA)) provided for tribal–state compacts, but the controversy turned on who, under state law, had authority to bind the State.

## Issues

1. Whether the Governor had independent constitutional or statutory authority to execute the tribal–state gaming compacts without legislative approval.
2. Whether the New Mexico Constitution’s separation of powers reserves to the Legislature authority over major policy choices implicated by gaming compacts.
3. Whether IGRA authorizes or permits the Governor to bypass state constitutional limits on executive power when entering tribal–state compacts.
4. Whether the challenged compacts were valid and enforceable under New Mexico law absent legislative authorization or ratification.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Supreme Court concluded the Governor lacked unilateral authority to enter the specific gaming compacts at issue without legislative approval.
- The Court treated the question of who may bind the State as controlled by state constitutional structure, not determined solely by IGRA.
- The Court determined the Governor could not use compacts to create or alter substantive state policy in an area committed to legislative control.
- As a result, the compacts were not validly concluded on behalf of the State to the extent they exceeded the Governor’s independent authority, absent later legislative authorization or ratification consistent with state law.

## Legal Principles

- Executive power under the New Mexico Constitution is limited by separation-of-powers constraints and cannot displace the Legislature’s primary lawmaking role.
- The Governor may not unilaterally commit the State to agreements that effectively establish new substantive policy or modify existing statutory schemes without legislative participation.
- Federal statutes contemplating state participation in intergovernmental agreements (such as IGRA) do not, by themselves, confer authority on a state executive to bind the State contrary to state constitutional allocations of power.
- Agreements characterized as “compacts” can require legislative authorization when they set major state policy or commit state regulatory authority.

## Conclusion

The New Mexico Supreme Court held that the Governor could not unilaterally bind the State to the challenged tribal gaming compacts without legislative approval, reaffirming that state constitutional separation of powers limits executive authority even when federal law anticipates tribal–state compacts.


State ex rel. Clark v. Johnson, 904 P.2d 11 (N.M. 1995)