Judge delays 180-day school decision

The fight over the New Mexico Public Education Department’s rule requiring 180 instructional days — a plan that has drawn criticism from teachers, administrators and lawmakers for nearly a year — will continue after a judge delayed issuing a ruling in a key lawsuit.

In a hearing Monday, 5th Judicial District Judge Dustin Hunter heard arguments from attorneys representing the New Mexico School Superintendents Association and more than 50 school districts across the state, which sued the Public Education Department over the 180-day rule in April. But he put off issuing a ruling.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking a summary judgment in the matter — asking that Hunter find the rule is “invalid and unenforceable” as well as inconsistent with the Legislature’s intention. Such a ruling could put an end to the 180-day rule, which has been halted since Hunter imposed a preliminary injunction prohibiting its enforcement in May.

The Public Education Department, meanwhile, has filed its own motion seeking a summary judgment, with attorney Jeff Wechsler arguing Monday the 180-day rule is “complementary — not in conflict with — the statute.”

Hunter asked the parties to submit additional documentation within the next few weeks, in hopes of resolving the case before the end of October. He said he’ll set a hearing to publicly announce his findings.

But, the judge said, his responsibility is to resolve the legal questions in a disagreement between the state’s legislative and executive branches — not to comment on public policy.

“It’s not for me to decide what the best policy is,” Hunter said. “I’m not the expert. I’m not the Legislature. And my decision will not be based upon what I think is appropriate from an educational standpoint.”

The question at the heart of the dispute over the 180-day rule: Hours or days?

In 2023, lawmakers passed House Bill 130, a law that extended the school year to 1,140 hours for all New Mexico students.

The fact that the Legislature specifically chose to mandate an increase in hours at school indicates a deliberate avoidance of setting a minimum number of instructional days, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Kinzie Johnson, argued Monday.

Johnson also noted an amendment included in the state’s budget bill passed earlier this year: “Money appropriated to the public education department shall not be used to implement or enforce any rule establishing a minimum requirement of one hundred eighty instructional days per school year.”

Though the item was later line-item-vetoed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, Johnson argued it showed legislative intent to avoid a mandate of 180 instructional days.

“No rule is valid or enforceable if it conflicts with statute, and a conflict between a rule and a statute is resolved in favor of the statute,” Johnson said during the hearing.

The Public Education Department’s response to the question on hours or days: Why not both?

Wechsler argued there’s nothing in the 180-day rule that conflicts with HB 130 — because the statute says nothing about instructional days and does not explicitly prohibit the adoption of a minimum day requirement.

Moreover, Wechsler added, it’s not necessary for the court to rely on extraneous sources — such as the item in the state’s budget bill — to interpret the law in this case.

“When the plain language of a statute is clear, it’s the court’s obligation to uphold the statute as written,” Wechsler said.