New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Policy Protecting Drug-Exposed Newborns, Rejecting ACLU Challenge
Key Insights
The New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously denied an ACLU petition seeking to halt a gubernatorial policy that takes custody of substance-exposed newborns for investigation.
More than 130 infants have entered foster care or other placements since Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham instituted the directive on July 7, 2025.
The Governor's office maintains the policy has saved lives, citing past tragedies including the death of a 1-month-old boy exposed to amphetamines, fentanyl, and marijuana.
The New Mexico Supreme Court on Monday unanimously declined to halt a nearly year-old gubernatorial policy designed to prevent drug-exposed newborns from being discharged to unsafe home environments, delivering a significant legal victory to Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham's administration.
Without comment, the justices denied a petition from the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico (search) and two state legislators seeking an emergency order on the grounds that the practice is unlawful and causing irreparable harm. The petition sought to prohibit the state Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) from taking custody of such infants at hospitals and immediately filing abuse and neglect petitions against their parents in court.
"The drugs devastating our families today demand a different response from state government," Lujan Grisham said in a statement issued Monday afternoon. "My executive order is part of that response — and it has already saved lives. The order is designed as a temporary structure to protect our most vulnerable children, not as a punishment of their parents."
Policy Origins and Scope
More than 130 infants have entered foster care or other suitable placements since the governor instituted the directive on July 7, 2025. Before that date, CYFD did not automatically take custody of and investigate newborns identified by hospital workers as drug-exposed. Instead, infants could go home under safety plans, and CYFD would investigate only if it received a separate report of abuse or neglect.
One reason for the previous approach: unlike at least 24 other states, New Mexico does not consider infants abused or neglected solely because of prenatal drug exposure, the ACLU stated in its petition.
The Governor's Office maintains the policy has improved the lives of children who are "recovering today because CYFD was able to investigate substance-exposure reports promptly and uncover the serious risks that lay beneath the surface," according to court documents filed by Lujan Grisham's office.
Tragic Cases Behind the Policy Shift
In court filings, the state argued the governor acted in response to past tragedies, including the death of a 1-month-old boy born exposed to amphetamines, fentanyl and marijuana. The infant was found dead, face down on a heating pad in his crib, in January 2025. Months earlier, another substance-exposed infant suffered a fractured leg at just 3 months old.
When Lujan Grisham took office in 2019, she had touted a "public health" approach to child welfare issues, instituting voluntary "plans of safe care" where women whose babies tested positive for drugs were offered resources but sent home with no follow-up from child protective services. The results, according to reporting, included a baby dying every month from opioid exposure, unsafe sleep, medical neglect or other circumstances resulting from parents suffering from addiction.
Legal Arguments and Response
The ACLU contended that parents whose newborns were taken into state custody were denied due process and argued the practice is unconstitutional. "Under this zero-tolerance policy," the ACLU argued, "newborns are removed from their parents at birth, deprived of developmentally crucial bonding time, and ushered into a system with a proven lack of capacity to provide adequate care."
The Governor's Office countered that the ACLU, state Rep. Micaela Cadena, D-Mesilla, and state Sen. Linda Lopez, D-Albuquerque, lacked standing to bring the case. It further argued that parents can challenge removals through Children's Court proceedings.
"The Directive makes the substance-exposed newborn's health and safety the 'paramount concern' by utilizing existing authority to give CYFD the time to investigate and ensure that an infant can safely remain in the care of the parent who exposed them to a dangerous drug, multiple drugs or large amounts of alcohol — as opposed to simply letting the baby go and 'hoping for the best,'" Lujan Grisham and CYFD stated in their response.
Maralyn Beck, founder and executive director of the nonprofit New Mexico Child First Network, told the Albuquerque Journal: "We are relieved, if not overjoyed, to see the Supreme Court deny this petition. The governor's directive is working ... lives have been saved."
Broader Implications
The case has drawn national attention to how states handle substance-exposed infants amid the ongoing drug crisis. Amicus briefs supporting the ACLU suit came from organizations including Pregnancy Justice, a New York-based nonprofit, and some of New Mexico's Native American tribes, who claimed the rule violates the state's Indian Family Protection Act.
The ACLU did not immediately comment on the Supreme Court's decision when contacted by the Journal. Since the policy took effect, no substance-exposed infants in state custody have died, according to reporting on the policy's outcomes.