WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 153

Permanent vehicle registration.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Ocean Andrew and 10 co-sponsors

HB 153 shields journalists and their sources from state subpoenas, modernizing protections for electronic records and limiting compelled disclosures to terrorism or imminent harm.

H COW:H Did not consider for COW
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 153

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preventing state entities from compelling journalists (and certain electronic service providers) to disclose sources, unpublished materials, or communications used in newsgathering — updating/replacing prior shield-law language and adapting protections to modern electronic communications.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.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.