Taming New Mexico; Maureen Sanders Interview

I'm going to get a name and spelling on tape or anything. Yeah, let's do that. He's talking about that. Oh, and let's one more thing, guys. We'll give us a name and spelling and then we'll set frame one. We'll get that light nice and tight. But go ahead. Name and spelling and title, please, to tell you. You do the address. Maureen Sanders, MA-U-R-E-E-N-S-A-N-D-E-R-S. You mean, you have a title for you? What would you have? What do you have? Civil rights attorney in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Okay. Well, let's talk about something, guys. Okay. Maureen, the question I didn't have on there, but why don't you just explain why you got into civil rights law? It's supposed to be. When I went to law school, I had been a teacher for many, many years. And knew that kids needed to get a break in the judicial system and the justice system. And so I really went with the intention of representing kids in the justice system.

And as I went to law school and then I clerked for Judge Meacham at the Federal Courthouse, I realized that my interests were broader than just kids. And my interests really went to the civil rights of everybody in the country. Okay. Great. Let's try another one, guys. Are we ready to go? Yes. We're ready to go. Okay. All right. We'll go to that first clip about when you went to law school. Basically, talk about how you learned early on in terms of civil rights federal courts where the place where you went to. Sure. When I went to law school, we were taught that if you wanted to protect the civil rights of anybody, then you needed to go as fast as you could to the federal court. Because if you look at the history of civil rights litigation in this country, the individual civil liberties were protected by the federal courts.

And so that's what we learned as we were in law school. Okay. I want to stop you here. All right. That's okay. But if you wanted to talk about it again, yeah. There's a little rustle. You wouldn't want to take it. Okay. Same question. When I went to law school, I was taught that if you wanted to protect the individual civil liberties that you needed to go to federal court. And so we learned that anytime you have a civil rights case, you should run to federal court as fast as you could. Because if you look at the history of civil rights litigation in this country, that is where liberties were protected. Great. Okay. One more time and I'll just add, if you could put in context at you sixties, right? Actually, I was in law school in the seventies. Okay. Well, just- But it was a sixties that we were studying, so I can do it that way. Oh, okay. Yeah.

I think to put it in a little bit of context is that's kind of what- Mm-hmm. Yeah, just, let's go. When I went to law school in the seventies, we learned that the civil rights protections afforded in- by the courts in the sixties during the civil rights movement was done in the federal court. And so we learned that if you had a civil rights case, you wanted to run as fast as you could to the federal courts. Okay. Okay. We'll get noticed. Do you like another question you would roll over me? Okay. I want to go to the- Not the law school. This is a lot of reasons. This is the next one is a sort of the response you had to- questions, what did the feds response to the Durant case indicate to you about the federal courts and your- I didn't- It was along the lines of, you know, we recognized that individuals even in custody have rights, that they were willing to protect them.

Okay. Ready? Ready. Good bye. Yes. In this district, particularly, I think the courts have been willing to recognize that individuals in custody also have rights, and this district has been willing to act to protect the rights of those individuals in custody. And state government and county governments know that, have known that throughout the history of this court, and so they- The courts- The federal courts can actually work as a hammer to make sure that the rights of individuals in custody are adequately protected. Great. Okay. It's good. It's a little wide. There's a little wide of it. A little wide of it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, again, the- What you learned about going to the fence in terms of civil rights cases, that first answer? You know, I went to the law school in the 70s, and we spent a lot of time looking at the civil rights movement,

and within the justice system in the 60s. And what we learned from that was, if you want to protect somebody's civil rights, you run to the federal court as fast as you can, because historically, that is where people's civil rights and individual liberties were protected during the 60s civil rights movement. Okay. Tony. Yeah. Yeah. And we're speaking. When I went to law school, we learned that if you want to- I screwed it up. When I went to law school, we learned that in order to protect people's civil rights, you needed to get to the federal court as fast as you can, because it was a federal court that protected the civil rights of individuals during the 1960s civil rights movement. Okay. Are you happy with that? Yeah. Did I have the 60s in the right place? I was saying again, and the phrase I like was, run as fast as you can. You didn't say run, you said we went as fast.

Okay. I like that phrase. It's basically the same thing except- Right. When I went to law school, we learned that if you wanted to protect- let me start over- When I went to law school, we learned that if you wanted to protect the civil rights of an individual, you had to run as fast as you can to the federal court, because during the 60s civil rights movements, it was the federal courts that protected the rights of the individuals. That's it. Okay. We good? Yep. All right. Okay. Listen to the question of the rights of people in custody and how the federal courts here protected that over time. Okay. The phrase about the federal court being the hammer to do that. People in custody have rights as well as people outside of custody. And this federal court district has never waived in- I don't like that.

Okay. People in custody have individual rights even though they are in custody. And this federal court has always recognized that truth. And this federal court has never been hesitant to make- to take steps to ensure the rights of individuals in custody. And the people in state government and county government in this district know that. And therefore the federal court acts as a hammer to make sure that local governments and state governments do right by individuals in custody. Okay. All right. We're thinking of renewing this. I mean, hold on. Hold on. All short. Just roll. Realize there was a- I guess. That's it. We can't. Okay. Okay. Can we speak? We're going to roll. Okay. All right. Okay. Yeah. Let's talk about how the courts handle these custody issues. People in custody have constitutional rights and the courts have recognized that.

The courts here in New Mexico- the federal court here in New Mexico- hasn't been afraid to recognize the constitutional rights of individuals in custody. And local government in New Mexico knows that. And so the federal court essentially acts as a hammer to the local governments to make sure that the local governments are recognizing or protecting the rights of individuals in custody. Okay. Great. Is that sounding good? I mean, shit. The right level. Yeah. I just want to make sure it's- There's enough oomph behind it with that- With that I get in two questions. Yep. There's plenty of level. Okay. Yep. All right. Let's just do the part about- Just the- The last sentence or- Right. It was- It was- It was- It was part about the federal court being- Because we repeated custody-

Read this paragraph to Megan. Yeah. So the court has been the hammer because people in the state know the courts will step in. And this district has not been afraid to do that. Okay. So- I like the way you brought in- You know, the federal- How you introduce it saying the state- Right. And local courts- Okay. So the read the last sentence to Megan? So the federal court has been the hammer because people in the state know the courts will step in. And this district has not been afraid to do that. Okay. So- The federal courts will be the hammer. And the people in this state know that. And- I'll ask her that- I can still- All right. The federal courts have been the hammer in protecting the rights of individuals in custody. And the people in this state know that. And so they know that the federal court will not hesitate to step in when local governments are not recognizing that individuals in custody. Okay. And then just a- Just a- Just a- Just a- Just a-

Something like the federal court has been the hammer to ensure that- That state and local authorities treat- Okay. Those in custody. The federal government has been the hammer to ensure that state and local governments in this district recognize that. People in custody have constitutional rights and those rights cannot be violated by governmental officials. Great. Okay. Made that part up and I like that. What's that? Are you- Are you- Are you having to look around the black? No, I'm- Oh, okay. All right. You get what's happening. Yeah, I like that. All right. Great. Okay. I'm going to find my question here. So the case- The question essentially- How did the Jackson case benefit the developmentally disabled and- The particular part of that was that you- You'd answer that, you know, by-

You're going out in the community that you discovered that these folks could have- Well, and that's when I talk about- The parent. I'm sorry. That's when I talk about the parent. Yeah, how she was against it and when she found out how- You know, what was available and how much better life could be, how that was helpful. So, yeah. Okay. Once as a result of the Jackson litigation, individuals came out of custody. Individuals with development. Let's start with that. Okay. Once individuals who had been a warehouse came out into the community to receive services. As a result of the Jackson litigation, it was amazing how much richer their lives became. There's one parent who came in as an intervener in the lawsuit and who had originally been very much against the lawsuit. And when she recognized ultimately the progress and the quality of life her son had as a result of- As a result of receiving services in the community, she became the strongest advocate for community services for individuals with developmental disabilities. Okay.

Great. Let's just- let's just do the- There was one parent of an individual with developmental disability who had been strongly against the lawsuit. She wanted her son kept where he had been rather than served in the community. And once he was brought out into the community to get served as a result of the lawsuit, he developed a much fuller life and developed his potential to a much greater degree than she ever thought possible. And to this day now, she is the strongest advocate for community services for those with developmental disabilities. Great. That's it. We sound good? Yeah. Okay. Let's see here. The next question is going to be- Well, essentially the same- the same thing as we talked about with the custody people about how the courts have been willing to step in to help- you mentioned here specifically- People with special needs, development and developmentally disabled inmates or just special ed kids that you kind of wrapped up saying that they're going to protect all these people who are at a disadvantage.

So I'll just read it back to you. Okay. Nevertheless, the federal courts in New Mexico have been at the forefront of providing assurances that those with special needs are provided with- With what they are entitled to under federal and state law, whether it be the developmentally disabled or inmates or just special ed kids. Sorry. All right. You good? Never less. One second. One second. We get settled in. Sorry. Okay. Are you settled in? Tell me. I'm settled in. I'm- Straighten him up and straighten him up. Straighten him up and straighten him up and straighten him up. Nevertheless, I should start over here. All right. All right. Ready? Are you guys ready? Are we ready? We roll? Okay. Nevertheless, the federal district court here has always been willing to ensure that people with special needs get all they are entitled to under federal and state laws. And whether the individuals are inmates, those with developmental disabilities or special ed kids, this court will act to ensure that their rights are protected.

Okay. Let's do that one more time. Nevertheless, this district has always- Nevertheless, this federal court has been at the forefront of protecting the rights of individuals with special needs. Whether it be individuals who are inmates, individuals who have developmental disabilities or just special ed kids, this court has always acted to protect the civil rights of those individuals. Great. Okay. The last of the ones in the script are about- You're responding to Judge Parker's apology at the Wendell case. And I love your answer so as close as we get to him, but I'll read it back to you. You always hear about the overreach of this or that, but for a federal judge to say,

I apologize, give some credibility that the system can work. In those instances where things went wrong for a while, there's a way to address them and that gives people some confidence that their concerns are being heard. I had a lot of respect for Judge Parker before that, but I had even more respect after that. Okay. How does it start? I forget. You always hear about the overreach. Are we ready? You often hear about the overreach of prosecutors or other things in government, but in that particular case, things work. I lost it. Okay. The overreach part is fine, but for a federal judge to say, I apologize. I always hear about the overreach of government in many different instances, but for a federal judge to apologize for that kind of overreach, you know that the system can in fact work.

And for Judge Parker to issue an apology in that particular case was amazing and put confidence in the people that the system will work. You know, I always had a lot of respect for Judge Parker before that, but after he issued that apology, I respected him even more. Okay. Great. Let's just do that. The last part about after Judge Parker or you had more respect for him than just that part of that. After Judge Parker issued the apology in that case, let me start with. I've always had a lot of respect for Judge Parker, but after Judge Parker issued that apology in that case, I had even more respect for him. And then let's break up the first part of it again. So let's start with just a part and you hear about the overreach of government, I think is what he said, but for federal judge to say, I apologize gives some credibility that the system can work.

Just that. You always hear about overreach by government, but in that particular instance, for a federal judge to issue an apology, it indicates and gives confidence to the people that the system can in fact work. Okay. All right. I think that's it. Do you have anything else you want? Why is, you mentioned to me that they're still litigating the Jackson case. Why is the Jackson case still going on today? The Jackson case was won by the plaintiffs in 1990 when Judge Parker issued his decision that found that the state of New Mexico was violating the constitutional rights of those being warehouse at Fort Stanton and lossliness. And today, where you're still litigating the Jackson case and the people are out of those two institutions and they're being served in the community.

The state has not yet reached the required level of protection for the individuals in the community, particularly with respect to having a system that works with regarding the medical health needs of the individuals as well as the safety needs of the individual. And so the reason it's still lasting a long time is the state hasn't met the criteria that they need to meet. I will tell you that in my view, we have new administrations every four years or eight years or whatever and you take two steps forward and then you take one step back. And each time the administration forgets that the state already lost that lawsuit and they keep trying to fight it again rather than take the affirmative steps that are necessary to satisfy the requirements of the constitutional rights. The constitutional rights of the individuals with developmental disability.

Tell me how you really feel, Lauren. That last part was beautiful. Thank you. That's the real truth. The real truth is that we went from the 19th century where we're trying to impose a legal system on a huge group of people who are being territory and the focus shifted back to the individual in the 20th century, especially around the civil rights period. What can you talk a little bit about that, put that a little bit in context about why maybe your theory of why civil rights, you know, the change right went from one end of the spectrum from, you know, getting masses of people to base on the honoring the rights of an individual. Once you have a system where people are somewhat acting civilly, then you start looking to think about, okay, what can be better?

And then you start to look at what are our founding documents, including the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights in this country is a really important document. And as people looked at it and became aware of it in New Mexico after the territorial days, became more and more clear that, you know, you had individuals who weren't being treated fairly and not just in New Mexico but across the country. And so you have minorities or you have marginalized groups of people who have not been treated correctly by the government, by their own government. And so Congress and other parts of the government have decided that that's not right. And so there have been the passage of the civil rights acts and the 60s and voting rights act and those sorts of things. And so the focus of the federal government, I mean, of the federal courts has become one of making sure that the rights that each individual has under the Bill of Rights or under those particular statutes are actually being protected. And that is the primary role as far as I'm concerned of the federal court.

We had talked, again, it seems like the pendulum is swinging back again. And then it's more difficult now to get civil rights cases. I don't want to go too in depth, but when we talked about qualified immunities, one issue, and I'm forgetting what the other issue was. Summary judgment. Summary judgment, yeah. If we could just do a short version just mentioning those and then we can maybe get into more detail. It's difficult bringing civil rights cases in this day and age. And I see it as a situation where the federal courts from the Supreme Court on down have tried to take new, establish new procedures or substantive law that, in an effort to streamline the cases that are before them. And I think the procedural and substantive barriers that the courts have constructed really impede the ability to bring civil rights cases these days.

I believe in jury trials, and I believe we should have jury trials. And this country, the people of this country have always said, we're going to leave the decisions in most cases to the juries. And what the federal courts are now doing is taking the decisions away from the juries and putting them in the hands of the individual judges, even without a trial. And to me, that is wrong headed thinking. And we see it in particularly in two different ways. The first way I see it is where the federal courts have said, you know, we are going to be in a situation where we're going to go more freely grant summary judgments. And that means that the plaintiff never gets to trial, never gets to tell his story. And in this district, it doesn't even involve a hearing. A court reads some briefs, a judge reads some briefs and decides, okay, this person doesn't have a case that I am going to allow at trial.

And I am troubled by that, particularly when on paper, federal judges are making decisions as to the credibility of witnesses. I don't know how you can do that on paper. And so I'm really troubled by the expanding nature of summary judgment in the federal courts. The second issue I see that has become really troublesome and it's really being forced on the federal courts by the Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court, is this notion of qualified immunity. And it sounds good. And what it is is if a government official thought what he or she was doing was right and reasonable, then they are immune from lawsuits. And to me, that just doesn't seem right. It's wrong headed. And it should be a jury decision as to whether or not that individual person acted responsibly given the circumstances. And instead, individuals, cases are being kicked out, finding that the defendants had a right to qualify the immunity, which ends the lawsuit right then and there.

Thank you. I got a bunch of stuff out of that. I move your chat in our interview about really the shortage of civil rights lawyers in New Mexico, and can you talk about that and what that effect is? Being a civil rights lawyer is a tough job. And we don't have very many in this state. I would guess that we have less than 25 in the entire state of New Mexico, who as part of their, as a full time job sort of actually bring civil rights cases. And to me, that's a dangerous phenomenon because not 25 people cannot bring all the cases that actually exist in the state of New Mexico. We have to pick and choose. And so that means that in many instances, governmental officials are in fact getting a buy even though they violated the constitutional rights of individuals that came into contact with. And that troubles me. But it's, you know, it's a hard way to make a living. Civil rights cases are some of the most complex, difficult cases that exist.

They take a long time. And, you know, somehow you got to keep the doors of your office open. And so if, you know, if you don't have cases in the pipeline that are ever paying or you're getting kicked out of court on qualified immunity or summary judgment, then it makes it a really difficult and almost impossible way to earn a living as a lawyer. Okay. Let's see here. Let's just from the other side of it. Let's talk about, you had mentioned about the huge number of cases that were handled in this federal court district. And sort of, I don't know how you describe it, the buying that puts the court in or just the difficulty in having the judicial system work. This judicial district has, I think, the highest number of cases per judge in the country or some statistic like that.

And that really puts a burden not only on the court, but also on the litigants and the lawyers representing those litigants, whether they be businesses or governmental entities or individuals. It takes a long time to get a federal court case to a jury, even if you survive all emotion practice because of the overwhelming number of cases here in New Mexico. Many of those cases are criminal cases and many of them result from the fact that we are a border state. And so the judges feel overwhelmed by the number of criminal cases and the criminal cases take priority. And therefore, the civil litigants in this state who have a right to have their case heard in federal court are being put on the back burner. And that's not a good system for anybody. Legal decisions or judicial decisions should be made quickly so that people can get on with their lives. You know, federal court really keeps people tangled up in messes for a long time because they can't get to closure in the case.

And I think that's unfortunate. I can't come back to that. But you had mentioned a clerk for Judge Meacham. And so one of my questions is, put yourself on the other side of this. What did you learn about the job, the responsibilities of being a federal judge and what type of person it takes to do this job? You know, being a federal judge is a really hard job. And I learned that when I clerked for Judge Meacham. But I think what I took away from him is the notion that this is not a job that is just paper shuffling. This is a job that affects the lives of the people that are appearing before you. And you have to take that responsibility seriously. And you have to be fair. You have to respect all individuals and you have to make sure that individuals feel like they have been heard.

Even the people who lose their case need to have a feeling that they have been heard. And I think that's one of the most important things. And you know, it goes back to the notion that, you know, it all shouldn't be decided on paper. You need to have jury trials or hearings or a chance for the individual to tell their story and say, yes, you're right to be violated or no, they were not violated. And that's something that we're not seeing as much these days because people are so at the federal court are so overwhelmed with the number of cases. And, you know, frankly, we don't get to be before the judges. I actually think that the judges could be more efficient if they had more hearings, rather than, you know, spend as much time as they do writing the very long opinions that they do write. You know, there's more than one way to figure out what a case is about.

And I think hearings would be a more efficient way to do that. But I'm not the one that has the robes on these days. Perfect. Okay. Now, okay, that's a great long word. The one thing you learned from clerking for Judge Meachan, like there's just the core and most important thing about handling the responsibility of that job. And you sort of said about this thing. I think the one important thing is that people have to know that they have been... The one important thing I learned from clerking for Judge Meachan is that people have to feel as if they've been heard. And that people have to be treated with respect and no matter from where they come from, they have a right to have their rights protected by the federal court. Okay. One last question.

And I think what you were answering about the issues of not getting into trial arguments and maybe... What would you say is the biggest challenge facing the New Mexico court system today? I think the biggest challenge facing the New Mexico federal court system today is to not become so overwhelmed by the number of cases that they have, that they forget that their main purpose is to do what it says on the United States Supreme Court building, equal justice under law. And that is what they have to be the most concerned about, no matter how many cases they have on their document. Great. That's it? Wow. Good. That's all I got. Good as well. I'm going to do this. It was great. We rented an apartment for five days. And so it was right on this street that it has a lot of the big name shops on it. So it's a shopping area. But it's not so snooty that real people aren't think.

So it was really great because we could walk down the street at all times of the night. But it wasn't crowded. And when you go down to the really busy areas, then it gets crowded. But we were actually able to feel like we were almost part of the community. And so that was a really good thing. And they have, over in Europe now, they have a lot of hop-on hop-off buses. And so we bought the thing for two days. And in that way, one day, we did this part of the city. Another day, we did this part and that kind of thing. With the hop-on hop-off. And so it saw some great museums. There was a Picasso museum and a lot of early stuff. How big is Barcelona? I can't remember how many people it has. It's quite big. But it doesn't have that jammed feeling. I didn't roam at all. It was just way too many people. But Barcelona was more civilized as far as I was concerned.

And people weren't angry. The drivers weren't hawking at each other and throwing fingers or anything. They were civilized. Nobody tried to run yellow lights and red lights. It was just very calm. I have driven in Italy. Right? It was great. And it's a place I could see myself going back and hanging out for a month. And seeing all this stuff, I didn't get to see. The Gaudi stuff was unbelievable. How expensive is it compared to 70s and moved back to Italy? And lived like kings on their US pension over there. Because the mirror was so good at that point. They were living the high life over there. But yeah, as opposed to say London. Yep. Well, you know, like Rome.

I mean, we were in the old.