Netflix has expanded its New Mexico production facility to include four new soundstages, in a move that increases the streaming giant’s robust presence in the state with its film and television productions.

In addition to the stages, the expansion encompasses three mills, a production office, two stage support buildings and two backlot spaces spanning 108 acres on the property near Albuquerque, the streaming giant announced Thursday.

The Los Gatos, Calif.-based entertainment company acquired what was then known as ABQ Studios in 2018 and has shot several films and TV series in the region, such as supernatural thriller “Stranger Things” and gritty western “The Harder They Fall.” A representative for Netflix declined to comment on the cost of the new additions.

Thursday’s grand opening is part of a larger expansion project by Netflix. In 2020, the streamer unveiled plans to grow its New Mexico campus to include 10 new stages, postproduction facilities, offices, mills, backlots and other infrastructure.

“New Mexico has proven to be an exceptional production hub for us,” Ted Sarandos, co-chief executive of Netflix, said in a statement. “It offers a rich tapestry of landscapes, a talented workforce, and a supportive community. … Our continued investment in this region underscores our commitment to the local community and New Mexico’s vibrant cultural and economic landscape.”

The streamer isn’t the only entertainment company that has used the facilities at what is now Netflix Albuquerque Studios. Before the company took over, non-Netflix productions filmed at least partially on the Mesa del Sol lot include Disney’s “The Avengers”; Lionsgate’s “Sicario”; and AMC Networks’ “Breaking Bad,” produced by Sony Television.

Productions have been flocking to New Mexico in recent years to take advantage of its tax incentive program. Film and TV tax credits in the state range from 25% to 40% of direct production and postproduction costs. In part because of generous tax incentives offered in New Mexico, Georgia and other filming hot spots, Los Angeles continues to contend with the threat of runaway production.

Netflix alone has invested nearly $575 million in New Mexico productions and hired more than 4,000 local cast and crew members since purchasing ABQ Studios, the company said. New Mexico-based shoots for the company have included “Stranger Things,” “The Harder They Fall,” “Army of the Dead” and “El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie.”

While introducing the latest Albuquerque Studios expansion on Thursday, Netflix teased three upcoming projects shooting at the facility: western romance “Ransom Canyon,” medical procedural “Pulse” and supernatural series “The Boroughs.”

The streamer also pledged its “commitment to sustainability,” noting that the revamp incorporates solar and battery-storage systems, geothermal heating and cooling, electric appliances and 50 electric vehicle chargers.

In a major victory for business, the Supreme Court on Friday gave judges more power to block new regulations if they are not explicitly authorized by federal law.

The court’s conservative majority overturned a 40-year-old rule that said judges should defer to agencies and their regulations if the law is not clear.

The vote was 6 to 3, with the liberal justices dissenting.

The decision signals a power shift in Washington away from agencies and in favor of the businesses and industries they regulate. It will give business lawyers a stronger hand in challenging new regulations.

At the same time, it deals a sharp setback to environmentalists, consumer advocates, unions and healthcare regulators. Along with the Biden administration, they argued that judges should defer to agency officials who are experts in their fields and have a duty to enforce the law.

This deference rule, known as the Chevron doctrine, had taken on extraordinary importance in recent decades because Congress has been divided and unable to pass new laws on pressing matters such as climate change, online commerce, hospitals and nursing care and workplace conditions.

Instead, new administrations, and in particular Democratic ones, sought to make change by adopting new regulations based on old laws. For example, the climate change regulations proposed by the Obama and Biden administrations were based on provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970.

But that strategy depended on judges being willing to defer to the agencies and to reject challenges from businesses and others who maintained the regulations went beyond the law.

The court’s Republican appointees came to the case skeptical of the Chevron doctrine. They fretted about the “administrative state” and argued that unelected federal officials should not be afforded powers typically reserved for lawmakers.

“Chevron is overruled,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote Friday for the majority. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” Judges “may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous,” he added.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the Chevron rule was crucial “in supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds — to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest. And the rule is right,” she said. It now “falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority. The majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power.” Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) voiced outrage. “In overruling Chevron, the Trump MAGA Supreme Court has once again sided with powerful special interests and giant corporations against the middle class and American families. Their headlong rush to overturn 40 years of precedent and impose their own radical views is appalling.”

Experts said the impact of the ruling may not be clear for some time.

Washington attorney Varu Chilakamarri said the ruling means “industry’s interpretation of the law will be viewed as just as valid as the agency’s. It will be some time before we see the effects of this decision on the lawmaking process, but going forward, agency action will be under even greater scrutiny and there will likely be more opportunities for the regulated community to challenge agency rules and adjudications.”

In decades past, the Chevron doctrine was supported by prominent conservatives, including the late Justice Antonin Scalia. In the 1980s, he believed it was better to entrust decisions about regulations to agency officials who worked for the president rather than to unelected judges. He was also reflecting an era when Republicans, from Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, controlled the White House.

But since the 1990s, when Democrat Bill Clinton was president, conservatives have increasingly complained that judges were rubber-stamping new federal regulations.

Business lawyers went in search of an attractive case to challenge the Chevron doctrine, and they found it in the plight of four family-owned fishing boats in New Jersey.

Their case began with a 1976 law that seeks to conserve the stocks of fish. A regulation adopted by the National Marine Fishery Service in 2020 would have required some herring boats to not only carry a federal monitor on board, but also pay the salary of the monitor. Doing so was predicted to cost more than $700 a day, or about 20% of what the fishing boats earned on average.

The regulation had not taken effect, but it was upheld by a federal judge and the D.C. Circuit Court’s appellate judges who deferred to the agency’s interpretation of the law.

State Farm General is seeking to dramatically increase residential insurance rates for millions of Californians, a move that would deepen the state’s ongoing crisis over housing coverage.

In two filings with the state’s Department of Insurance on Thursday signaling financial trouble for the insurance giant, State Farm disclosed it is seeking a 30% rate increase for homeowners; a 36% increase for condo owners; and a 52% increase for renters.

“State Farm General’s latest rate filings raise serious questions about its financial condition,” Ricardo Lara, California’s insurance commissioner, said in a statement. “This has the potential to affect millions of California consumers and the integrity of our residential property insurance market.”

State Farm did not return requests for comment.

Lara noted that nothing immediately changes for policyholders as a result of the filings. His said his department would use all of its “investigatory tools to get to the bottom of State Farm’s financial situation,” including a rate hearing if necessary, before making a decision on whether to approve the requests.

That process could take months: The department is averaging 180 days for its reviews, and complex cases can take even longer, according to a department spokesperson.

The department has already approved recent State Farm requests for significant home insurance rate increases, including a 6.9% bump in January 2023 and a 20% hike that went into effect in March.

State Farm’s bid to sharply increase home insurance rates seeks to utilize a little-known and rarely used exception to the state’s usual insurance rate-making formula. Typically, such a move signals that an insurance provider is facing serious financial issues.

In one of the filings, State Farm General said the purpose of its request was to restore its financial condition. “If the variance is denied,” the insurer wrote, “further deterioration of surplus is anticipated.”

California is facing an insurance crisis as climate change and extreme weather contribute to catastrophic fires that have destroyed thousands of homes in recent years.

In March, State Farm announced that it wouldn’t renew 72,000 property owner policies statewide, joining Farmers, Allstate and other companies in either not writing or limiting new policies, or tightening underwriting standards.

The companies blamed wildfires, inflation that raised reconstruction costs, higher prices for reinsurance they buy to boost their balance sheets and protect themselves from catastrophes, as well as outdated state regulations — claims disputed by some consumer advocates.

As insurers have pulled back from the homeowners market, lawmakers in Sacramento are scrambling to make coverage available and affordable for residents living in high-risk areas.

Times staff writer Laurence Darmiento contributed to this report.