New Mexico ethics commission sues Corrections secretary over alleged ICE referrals

The New Mexico State Ethics Commission sued Corrections Secretary Alisha Tafoya Lucero on July 10, alleging that probation officers shared probationers’ sensitive personal information with federal immigration agents and asking a court to halt the practice.

The civil lawsuit says the alleged referrals to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement continued after New Mexico’s Nondisclosure of Sensitive Personal Information Act took effect July 1, 2025. The lawsuit names Tafoya Lucero in her official capacity as secretary of the New Mexico Corrections Department.

The allegations have not been established by a court. The commission’s case raises questions about how state probation information is handled, what protections apply to people under supervision and what remedies are available when a state agency is accused of disclosing protected information.

What the commission alleges

According to the commission’s lawsuit, Corrections Department probation officers disclosed information about people under probation supervision to ICE to facilitate immigration enforcement. The commission is asking a district court to stop the alleged disclosures and order related safeguards for the handling of probationers’ information.

The allegations concern information held by a state department about people who may be required to report to probation officers, comply with supervision conditions or work with attorneys and other service providers. That makes the dispute relevant to probationers, their families and lawyers, lawful permanent residents and people who could be mistakenly identified as being in the country unlawfully.

What the records show, according to reporting

Source New Mexico reported that its review of emails and other records attached to the case identified at least 20 additional referrals of probationers to ICE between October 2024 and May 2026. That period includes dates after the nondisclosure law took effect July 1, 2025.

Source New Mexico also reported that the records identified at least seven alleged deportations and five alleged referrals involving people officers mistakenly believed were undocumented, including U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Those figures are reported totals drawn from records attached to the lawsuit, not findings entered by a court. A referral does not necessarily mean a person was detained, arrested or deported.

What New Mexico’s law says

Senate Bill 36, enacted during the 2025 regular session, created the Nondisclosure of Sensitive Personal Information Act. The law defines sensitive personal information to include immigration status and national origin, as well as information about medical conditions, religion, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity, among other categories.

Generally, the law bars a state agency employee from intentionally disclosing sensitive personal information acquired through the employee’s state position to someone outside the agency. The statute includes exceptions for disclosures necessary to carry out a state-agency function, comply with a state or federal district court order or subpoena, satisfy federal law, comply with the Inspection of Public Records Act, occur in a court or administrative proceeding, support certain state contractors, fall under whistleblower protections, be permitted by federal health privacy law or be made with the person’s written consent.

Whether particular information was covered by the law and whether a specific disclosure fell within an exception are questions that may be disputed in the case. The statute does not make every transfer of information to a federal agency automatically unlawful.

The attorney general, district attorneys and State Ethics Commission may bring a civil action if a violation has occurred or to prevent one. The law sets a civil penalty of $250 for each violation, capped at $5,000.

Why the case matters statewide

The lawsuit could affect how probation officers communicate with federal immigration authorities and how the Corrections Department reviews, stores and releases information about people under state supervision.

For probationers and their attorneys, the case raises questions about whether information collected during state supervision can be used for immigration enforcement and what safeguards apply when officers handle immigration status, national origin or related personal details.

It also presents a state accountability question. The commission has taken the dispute to district court instead of relying only on an administrative investigation, but no judge has ruled that the Corrections Department violated the law.

What happens next

The lawsuit remains pending. The court must determine how to proceed with the commission’s requested relief, including whether any order should address the alleged disclosures or the department’s information-handling practices.

The available materials reviewed for this article did not establish a final ruling, injunction or other court order. They also did not provide a confirmed response from the Corrections Department or Tafoya Lucero to the allegations. Any response, motions or hearing dates will become part of the public case record as the proceeding moves forward.

Sources

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.