HB 153 — "Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act" — Summary
Status: Action postponed indefinitely (Introduced: August 15, 2025)
Primary subject: Press protections / limits on state-compelled disclosure
Summary purpose
- Establishes statutory protections preventing state entities from compelling journalists (and certain electronic service providers) to disclose sources, unpublished materials, or communications used in newsgathering — updating/replacing prior shield-law language and adapting protections to modern electronic communications.
Key provisions
- Definitions
- "Covered journalist": broadly defined to include persons who regularly gather, prepare, edit, report, investigate or publish news or matters of public interest.
- "Covered service provider": electronic services (telecom carriers, cloud providers, interactive service/content providers) that store/process information on behalf of customers.
- "Protected information": identifying information about sources and records/communications/documents obtained or created as part of journalism.
Limits on compelled disclosure from journalists
- A state entity (employee or agency of the legislative or executive branches or other state agency with subpoena power) may not compel a covered journalist to disclose protected information, except where a court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that disclosure is necessary to prevent or identify a perpetrator of terrorism or to prevent an imminent threat of violence/serious bodily harm (including certain offenses against minors).
Limits on compelled disclosure from service providers
- A state entity may not compel a covered service provider to produce testimony or documents stored on behalf of a covered journalist unless a court so orders under the same evidentiary/necessity standard.
- The service provider must notify the affected journalist and give the journalist an opportunity to be heard before disclosure — but the court may authorize delayed notice (up to 45 days, extendable in 45‑day increments) if there is clear and convincing evidence that notice would threaten a criminal investigation or present imminent risk of death/serious harm.
Content limits & narrowing
- If compelled, courts are directed to limit disclosure to what is necessary (e.g., to verify published facts or describe circumstances relevant to accuracy) and to avoid nonessential/speculative information.
Who would be affected
- Covered journalists and their sources (increased statutory protections).
- State entities (limits on investigative/subpoena powers directed at journalists or journalists’ service-provider accounts).
- Covered service providers compelled by state process; they would be subject to new notice/administrative procedures.
- Courts: required to apply the statute’s evidentiary standards, expedited hearing timelines, and tailoring rules.
Fiscal and legal considerations
- Fiscal impact: Legislative fiscal analysis estimates minimal state/local fiscal effects (minor administrative/court costs possible). A New Mexico Fiscal Impact Report concluded little financial impact.
- Legal issues flagged by agencies:
- New Mexico Attorney General raised concerns that the bill may conflict with existing evidentiary rules (Rule 11‑514) and could implicate constitutional limits on courts’ procedures (citing Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting).
- The broad definition of "journalist" could include influencers or bloggers, raising scope questions.
- The bill resembles the federal PRESS Act (previously passed by U.S. House but not enacted).
Procedural notes / timeline
- Committee activity (as reported in committee material): the bill was amended in committee (Consumer & Public Affairs; Judiciary) and a Judiciary Committee substitute recommended “do pass.” A fiscal/legal review was prepared. Despite committee progress, current status shown as “action postponed indefinitely,” so the bill is not enacted; earlier drafts included an effective date (when reported) of July 1, 2025.
Implications
- If enacted, HB 153 would strengthen statutory reporter‑source protections against state subpoenas and modernize safeguards for electronic records, while creating litigation points about scope, constitutionality, and interaction with existing evidence rules.
