Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR Reps. Silva and Martinez, J./Sen. Wirth
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 2
/8/2025
SHORT TITLE Protect Reporters From Exploitative Spying
BILL
NUMBER House Bill 153
ANALYST Gaussoin
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
AOC No fiscal impact No fiscal impact No fiscal impact Recurring General Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG) State Ethics Commission (SEC) Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Bill 153
House Bill 153 (HB153) repeals the existing press “shield” law that protects news reporters from
being compelled to reveal their sources with a new law—the Protect Reporters from Exploitative
State Spying Act, or PRESS Act—updated for current technology and practices.
The bill broadly defines a “covered journalist” as a person who regularly “gathers, prepares,
collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, investigates or publishes news or
information that concerns local, national or international events or other matters of public interest
for dissemination to the public.”
The bill would prohibit a “state entity,” defined as an agency in the executive branch or an
administrative agency of the state with subpoena or other compulsory powers, to compel a
journalist to reveal any information identifying a source or the contents of any communications
or documents related to putting together or publishing a story. The state entity would also be
prohibited from compelling a cell phone carrier or other similar electronic communications
service providers to provide testimony or any document stored on behalf of a covered journalist. House Bill 153 – Page 2
A district court could order a journalist or service provider to reveal information if it finds, from
“a preponderance of the evidence,” the information is necessary to identify a terrorist or prevent
an act of terrorism or act of violence.
If compelled, the information provided would be limited to verifying published information or
describing circumstances relevant to the accuracy of published information and tailored so it did
not include any nonessential or speculative information.
The effective date of this bill is July 1, 2025.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
This bill is likely to have little financial impact. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
reports it would have some administrative costs to update, distribute, and document any statutory
changes statewide and notes any new law has the potential to result in additional court cases.
However, existing court rules addressing media confidential sources and the near nonexistence
of New Mexico cases over press protections suggest no new cases would result from this
legislation.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Parts of New Mexico’s existing shield law were found to be unconstitutional in 1976 under
Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting and “the statute’s current significance is largely
historical,” according to a New Mexico lawyer writing for Reporters Committee for Freedom of
the Press.
1
The State Ethics Commission reports news media confidential source privilege is, instead,
addressed through New Mexico Rule of Evidence 11-514, most recently updated in 2013. The
commission says HB153 does not directly address reporter privilege but does dictate court
processes and deadlines and outlines the burden of proof on the district court: “It is likely that the
bill as written will not raise constitutionality issues or conflict with Rule 11-514, but these issues
must be kept in mind as the bill is amended through the legislative process.”
However, the New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG) disagrees and says the bill conflicts with
Rule 11-514 and, by legislating rules of evidence or procedure, violates the constitution in the
same way as Ammerman. Similarly, the bill’s provision that requires a court to hold a hearing
within 45 days of an action intended to compel disclosure from a covered service provider is an
unconstitutional setting of a timeline for the court. NMAG quotes the Ammerman decision: “The
time within which this court must consider a matter before it is for this court to determine.”
Finally, NMAG raises a concern that the broad definition of journalists in the bill “could create
unintended consequences…The reach of the definition does not appear to create a functional
distinction separating an investigative newspaper reporter from a social media influencer or from
a hobbyist blogger.”
AOC reports HB153 is substantially similar to the federal PRESS Act, which unanimously
1
https://www.rcfp.org/privilege-compendium/new-mexico/ House Bill 153 – Page 3
passed the U.S. House of Representatives but died in the U.S. Senate in December 2024. It notes
the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to interpret the First and Fourth amendments in the context
of a reporter’s privilege, leaving it to the states to provide protections. AOC notes the bill
requires a judge to limit the content disclosed if the request is “overbroad, unreasonable, or
oppressive,” but this language does not mirror any current legal standard and will to be
interpreted by the judge.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
NMAG points out the court may order disclosure to prevent “a threat of imminent violence,
significant bodily harm or death, including specified offenses against a minor,” but those
offenses are never specified.
HG/SL2