New Mexico Forward Party; Bob Perls; Michael Vigil; Dennis Dinge; Harry...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

NEW MEXICO FORWARD PARTY; BOB PERLS; MICHAEL VIGIL; DENNIS DINGE; HARRY MONTOYA; AND FRANCES KAVA,

Plaintiffs, v. Civ. No. 1:26-cv-02286-MIS-KK MAGGIE TOULOUSE OLIVER, in her official Capacity as Secretary of State of New Mexico; and BARBARA DELANEY, in her official capacity as County Clerk of Luna County, New Mexico,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY

AND INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Opposed Emergency Motion for Stay and Injunction Pending Appeal, ECF No. 27, filed September 4, 2026. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a) governs motions for stays and injunctions in the United States Courts of Appeal, while Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) governs motions for stays and injunctions in the United States District Courts.1 Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).

Under both Rules, however, the factors regulating the issuance of a stay [and injunction] are generally the same: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.

1 Rule 62(c) provides, in relevant part: “Unless the court orders otherwise, the following are not stayed after being entered, even if an appeal is taken: (1) an interlocutory . . . judgment in an action for an injunction . . . .” Id. (citations omitted). See also Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14, 16- 20 (2020); Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). “There is substantial overlap between these and the factors governing preliminary injunctions . . . because similar concerns arise whenever a court order may allow or disallow anticipated action before the legality of that action has been conclusively determined.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. “The first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical.” Id.

In its Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 22, the Court found that Plaintiffs have not made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, id. at 8-27; Plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm, id. at 28; and that Plaintiffs’ threatened injury does not outweigh injury to Defendants and an injunction would be against the public interest, id. at 29-31. Plaintiffs have not persuaded the Court that it decided these issues incorrectly, and the Court hereby adopts those findings as applicable to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Stay and Injunction Pending Appeal. Specifically, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims; Plaintiffs will not be irreparably injured absent a stay and injunction pending appeal; issuance of a stay and injunction pending appeal will substantially injure Defendants; and a stay and injunction pending appeal is contrary to the public interest.

Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Opposed Emergency Motion for Stay and Injunction Pending Appeal, ECF No. 27, is DENIED.

Maroed Shviddnud MARGARET STRICKLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE