New Mexico
Judge says he's leaning toward nixing FEMA rule denying fire victims payment for emotional losses • Source New Mexico
Hundreds of millions of dollars could be awarded to victims of the state’s biggest wildfire for the hardship they endured when the federally caused wildfire roared across their land in 2022, based on a judge’s comments Tuesday in federal court.
Judge James Browning said at the end of a hearing Tuesday afternoon he was “leaning” toward ruling on behalf of fire victims who sued the Federal Emergency Management Agency last year. He said he would issue a ruling as soon as possible, but likely not until next month.
If Browning does indeed side with the fire victims, which lawyers on both sides of the courtroom expect is likely, FEMA could be required to establish a system to quantify and compensate fire victims not only for the economic losses they suffered in the state’s biggest wildfire but also for the emotional harm.
For thousands of victims, that could mean additional compensation for the “annoyance, discomfort and inconvenience” of the “nuisance” or “trespass” the fire caused, victims’ lawyers said.
A few others could get sizable payments for their “pain and suffering” resulting from physical injuries they suffered in the fire, in addition to the medical costs. So far, the only recourse for those who were injured or for families of those who died in the fire or ensuing floods has been filing time-consuming and uncertain lawsuits in federal court.
Gerald Singleton, whose San Diego-based firm is representing about 1,000 fire victims, estimated these sorts of emotional harm losses could amount to about $400 million.
He also said the payments could result in a more-equitable distribution of fire compensation funding, as renters or those with low incomes would receive additional compensation beyond just the dollar value for their limited losses in the fire.
Even with the expected ruling, it’s not clear how quickly these payments could arrive in victims’ bank accounts. Because the legal battle centers around a regulation FEMA created, the agency’s lawyers said in court it would have to go through a whole new, formal rulemaking process. That could take months.
Feds try to skirt responsibility in lawsuit for people who died after state’s biggest wildfire
The money would come out of a nearly $4 billion fund Congress established in September 2022 that members hoped would “fully compensate” victims of the Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon Fire, started earlier that year by two federal prescribed burns that escaped and combined to destroy several hundred homes and scorched a 534-square-mile area.
As of Sept. 24, the Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon Claims Office had paid $1.35 billion of the fund in 10,417 different claims from households, nonprofits, businesses and local and tribal governments.
Jay Mitchell, director of the claims office, watched the half-day court hearing Tuesday. In a brief interview with Source New Mexico after the judge’s comments, Mitchell suggested the compensation required by the expected ruling could be challenging to administer.
Even though $4 billion might seem like a huge number, “It is a limited fund,” Mitchell said. He suggested the ruling could open the door to a flood of new claims seeking damages for “nuisance” or “trespass” from people whose properties were touched by wildfire smoke.
“Smoke goes where it goes,” he said as he walked into a meeting with lawyers representing FEMA after the hearing.
Did Congress intend to limit damages?
Singleton’s was among four firms representing dozens of named plaintiffs who sued FEMA last October, alleging the agency improperly denied so-called “non-economic damages” to fire victims in a final set of regulations it published last summer. The rules limited compensation to only economic damages, which are the type of losses with a price tag: things like cars, homes, business expenses and cattle.
The rule was based on the agency’s interpretation of the Hermits Peak-Calf Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act, written and sponsored by U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez and U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján, both Democrats from New Mexico.
Luján’s office did not respond to a request for comment. U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich’s office said the senator would wait until the ruling to weigh in. Leger Fernandez’s office told Source NM she couldn’t comment due to the pending litigation, but she’s “following the issue closely.”
The victims’ lawsuit alleged the agency was wrong when it interpreted the act as excluding non-economic damage payments. To make their argument, lawyers parsed the act’s language to try to determine congressional intent and analyzed state law about what recourse victims would have under New Mexico law if a private company had started the fire and not the federal government.
Months of back and forth between lawyers centered on what Congress meant when they wrote the act. Browning on Tuesday questioned victims’ lawyers and the United States Attorney’s Office about what they think Congress intended by language such as “limited to,” “allowable damages,” “injured person” and “actual compensatory damages.”
In the scar of New Mexico’s largest wildfire, a legal battle is brewing over the cost of suffering
For example, the law says payments “shall be limited to actual compensatory damages.” Victims’ lawyers argued, with numerous citations in New Mexico law and elsewhere, that “actual compensatory damages” historically means both economic and non-economic damages. FEMA’s lawyers interpreted the clause to mean that Congress was imposing a limitation: Only economic damages were allowed.
The lawsuit occurred after a Supreme Court ruling that removed deference to federal agencies when they write regulations based on ambiguous laws passed by Congress. It’s not clear how much the court’s ruling on the so-called “Chevron deference” precedent impacted the judge’s comments. But plaintiffs’ lawyer Tom Tosdal repeatedly cited Justice Neil Gorsuch’s ruling in his arguments Tuesday, and the judge wondered aloud whether it applied.
By the time the hearing started Tuesday, Browning said he’d already made up his mind on one important aspect of the lawsuit: He agreed that New Mexico law allows non-economic damages to be paid to victims in a scenario like the fire. That’s important because of a provision in the law requiring the calculation of damages to be based on what’s allowed under state law.
He cited an opinion from the New Mexico Attorney General that concluded emotional hardship payments are allowed for victims of “nuisance and trespass” here. An official at the New Mexico Department of Justicewrote the opinion after a request from two state lawmakers made shortly after a Source New Mexico and ProPublica article on the legal battle.
Victims’ lawyers have a ‘better reading’ of the law, judge says
In describing his inclination to side with the fire victims over the government, Browning also cited one piece of language that lawyers on both sides argued showed congressional intent to either exclude or include emotional hardship payments.
One of the laws’ sections is titled “Allowable Damages” in capital letters and goes on to list three categories of payments: Financial, business or property. To FEMA’s lawyers, Congress was listing all the types of allowable payments, which they said in a legal brief was “implied” by the phrase “allowable damages.”
FEMA has paid out just 2% of fund to help wildfire victims rebuild. Some can’t wait much longer.
To the fire victims’ lawyers, Congress was just specifying some types of compensation the act allowed but not limiting payments to those categories of loss.
The judge agreed: “Plaintiffs have a better reading,” he said. He seized on the fact that FEMA’s lawyers wrote in their brief that Congress “implied” its intent to limit damages in that section of the law. An implication is not enough, he said.
Browning also said he would try to issue a ruling as quickly as he could, and discussed with lawyers the best way to avoid further delays in getting the compensation to victims. He cited previous delays in the claims office compensation as the reason for his urgency.
“I don’t live under a rock,” he said. “I know that there has been a lot of criticism of how slow the process was.”
New Mexico
Remembering Pancho Villa’s New Mexico Raid and the Punitive Expedition Into Mexico | Council on Foreign Relations
Say the words “September 11” and every American instantly knows what you are referring to. The same is true for “Pearl Harbor.” Most Americans vaguely know that during the War of 1812 the British shelled Fort McHenry and burned down the White House. But mention the words “Columbus, New Mexico” and you will draw blank stares. Yet on March 9, 1916, Mexican revolutionary leader José Doroteo Arango Arámbula—better known to history as Pancho Villa—led a surprise attack on Columbus that left eighteen Americans and eighty Mexicans dead. Within days, nearly 7,000 U.S. soldiers crossed the border into Mexico in search of Villa in what would become one of the more dismal chapters in U.S. military history: the Punitive Expedition.
The Mexican Revolution
The events in Columbus, New Mexico had a back story. In 1911, a popular uprising had ousted Porfirio Díaz as president (more accurately, dictator) of Mexico after thirty-five years in power. (Díaz is credited with uttering the line, “Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!”) His overthrow ushered in a decade of political instability known as the Mexican Revolution. Mexico saw several leaders come to power as conflict wracked the country.
The first person to succeed Díaz was Francisco Madero. The son of a wealthy landowner in northeastern Mexico, Madero studied in the United States and France and became a democracy advocate. He was also, to say the least, odd. As the historian Robert Ferrell tells it:
At one meeting with the American ambassador, Henry Lane Wilson, the president of Mexico placed a third chair in the circle and announced to the ambassador that a friend was sitting there. The friend was invisible, Madero explained, but there nonetheless.
In February, after holding power for less than two years, Madero was shunted aside by his leading military officer, General Victoriano Huerta. The general drank, and drank often; brandy was his preferred drink. (He died in 1916 from cirrhosis of the liver.) He had Madero and his vice president shot, possibly at the behest of Ambassador Wilson. Huerta had suggested to Ambassador Wilson that perhaps he should exile Madero or send him to an insane asylum. The ambassador responded ambiguously; Huerta “ought to do that which was best for the peace of the country.”
Madero’s murder outraged the incoming U.S. president, Woodrow Wilson, who was not related to Ambassador Wilson and who was inaugurated on March 4, 1913. (The tradition of inaugurating presidents on January 20 did not begin until after the passage of the Twentieth Amendment in 1933.) Once in office, Wilson refused to recognize Huerta’s legitimacy, saying the Mexican general led a “government of butchers.” Ever the moralist, Wilson told the British ambassador to the United States: “I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men.” Wilson’s efforts to influence who would lead Mexico included using the Tampico Incident in April 1914 to order the U.S. invasion of Veracruz, Mexico. U.S. troops would remain there until that November.
Venustiano Carranza Takes Power
President Wilson got his wish for a new Mexican government in August 1914 when Huerta was ousted by Venustiano Carranza. Another son of a wealthy landowner and a Madero follower, Carranza was a former governor of the Mexican state of Coahuila. He quickly found his rule challenged by his former ally, Francisco (Pancho) Villa, who had led the “Division of the North” in fighting against Huerta loyalists.

Villa at first had Carranza on the defensive. In December 1914, Villa’s forces briefly took control of Mexico City before being driven back north. Wilson thought that Villa might be friendly to U.S. interests, so he withheld formal recognition of the Carranza government. Villa in turn hoped that Wilson’s refusal to recognize the Carranza government would help his cause. He was soon disappointed, however. The war in Europe increasingly consumed Wilson’s time, and he wanted a way out of his confrontational policies toward Mexico. Carranza, as he put it, “will somehow have to be digested.” In October 1915, the United States did just that, formally recognizing his government.
Pancho Villa’s Revenge
Villa viewed Wilson’s decision as a betrayal, especially after Washington allowed Carranza’s troops to travel on U.S. railroads through New Mexico and Arizona to pursue Villa and his men rather than cross the harsh northern Mexican desert by horseback. German agents also urged Villa to turn on the United States. They hoped to bog the United States down in a war with Mexico that would prevent a U.S. entry into World War I.
With events having shifted against him, Villa devised a new strategy. He would seek to provoke the United States into attacking Mexico, thereby discrediting Carranza as a pawn of the United States. Villa put his plan into effect in January 1916. As Ferrell tells the story, Villa’s troops:
Met a Mexican Northwestern train at Santa Ysabel on January 11, 1916, carrying seventeen young American college graduates who had just come into Mexico from California under a safe conduct from Carranza to open a mine. Villa killed sixteen of them on the spot.
Villa spared one of the young Americans so he could tell his countrymen what happened.
The news of the Santa Ysabel massacre did not trigger the U.S. retaliation that Villa expected. So, he turned to something even more audacious. In the predawn hours of March 9, 1916, Villa’s men raided the town of Columbus, New Mexico, three miles north of the border. A regiment of the U.S. Army’s 13th Cavalry was encamped at the town, and its munitions depot was a target of the raid. Despite being caught off guard, the U.S. troops quickly regrouped and returned fire—at one point setting up a machine gun in front of the town’s lone hotel. The fighting, as well as the fires Villa’s men set, left the town in ruins.

The Punitive Expedition
By the end of the day on March 9, Wilson had ordered General John J. Pershing to cross into Mexico to hunt down Villa. The incursion would have been an act of war, except that Carranza had reluctantly consented to it; he essentially had no other choice. He did, however, extract one face-saving concession: Mexico had the right, at least in theory, to pursue bandits across the border into the United States.

The Punitive Expedition began with much enthusiasm and moral righteousness in Washington. It proved in practice, like most of Wilson’s policies toward Mexico, to be a political and diplomatic blunder. Pershing’s troops trekked more than 300 miles through northern Mexico without setting eyes on Villa, who knew the unfriendly terrain and was a hero to the local people. Critics back in the United States began to call the incursion as the “Perishing Expedition.”

Rather than cut his losses, Wilson surged more troops into Mexico. Soon more than 12,000 U.S. soldiers had crossed the border. Carranza understandably wanted them all to go home. Even though General Pershing assured Washington that “the natives are not generally arming to oppose us,” in June 1916 U.S. forces clashed with the Mexican army, leaving a dozen Americans and forty Mexicans dead. Within days, Wilson had ordered nearly 150,000 National Guard troops to the border. War seemed likely.
Reversing Course
Wilson’s stubbornness and self-righteousness partly explain why he continued to dig his hole deeper in Mexico rather than stop shoveling. Politics also played a part—1916 was a presidential election year. Like many presidents who would follow him, Wilson did not want to hand an election issue to his opponent by looking “weak” in his dealing with Mexico.
Events on the other side of the Atlantic eventually forced Wilson’s hand. With relations with Germany worsening, and the likelihood of a U.S. entry into World War I growing, he ordered the withdrawal of U.S. troops in early January 1917. The last U.S. soldiers left Mexico on February 5, 1917. Less than four weeks later, the American public would learn about the Zimmermann Telegram.

Today Columbus, New Mexico, is home to about 1,800 people. It lies thirty five miles south of Deming, New Mexico, and sixty-five miles west of El Paso, Texas. You can find it by taking New Mexico State Highway 11 south from I-10 or New Mexico State Highway 9 from El Paso. Should you ever visit Columbus, be sure to check out Pancho Villa State Park.
The United States celebrates its 250th anniversary in 2026. To mark that milestone, I am resurfacing essays I have written over the years about major events in U.S. foreign policy. A version of this essay was published on March 9, 2011.
Oscar Berry assisted in the preparation of this post.
New Mexico
Aggies Earn Outright Mountain West Title with Win Over New Mexico
Courtesy of Utah State Athletics
LOGAN, Utah – Utah State men’s basketball concluded its final season in the Mountain West with a championship Saturday afternoon in the Dee Glen Smith Spectrum, defeating New Mexico 94-90 to secure the outright regular season championship and the No. 1-seed in the upcoming MW Tournament.
This is Utah State’s third all-time Mountain West championship, and its second outright title since joining the league in 2013. The Aggies had secured at least a share of the title prior to the game, but were able to prevent the second-place Lobos from claiming a share with the victory. This is the second time USU has won the MW title outright, joining the 2024 squad as the only Aggie teams to do so.
The Aggies conclude the 2025-26 regular season 25-6 overall and 15-5 in conference play. This is the 12th 25-win season in program history, and the first time the team has ever won 25-plus in four-straight seasons.
The senior class showed up in a big way on senior night, combining for 62 of Utah State’s 94 points in the contest. In his final game in the Spectrum, senior guard MJ Collins Jr. led the way as he went for 27 points with a season-best six rebounds, an assist and a steal. This was the second-best scoring performance of the season for Collins Jr.
Other seniors honored following the game included guards Drake Allen and Kolby King, and forwards Zach Keller and Garry Clark. Each senior gave a major contribution — Allen going for 14 points, Keller for eight, King finishing with seven and Clark going for six.
The Aggies led from nearly start-to-finish in the victory, leading for over 38 minutes while trailing for less than one. USU shot an efficient 50 percent from the field and found its rhythm from deep as well, connecting on 10-of-27 3-pointers. Despite the hot shooting, however, the Lobos held strong and remained in the contest throughout, shooting 48 percent on their end of the court.
Utah State set the tone early with 10 makes in its first 15 shots, opening up a double-digit advantage six minutes in at 17-7. The Aggies remained decisively in front through the rest of the half, until a 7-0 New Mexico run to close the half gave the Lobos their first and only lead of the contest, going into the locker room up 94-90.
The second half started the same as the first, the Aggies pouncing to quickly regain control. USU opened the final 20 minutes with a 12-2 run out of the gates, sparked by back-to-back triples from Collins Jr.
While the Aggies never took another double-digit lead, they remained on top the rest of the way. Despite a cold streak where it made just three of 13 shots, USU kept itself in control at the charity stripe, connecting on 83 percent of its free throws including going 18-of-21 in the second half.
Along with Collins Jr.’s big scoring performance, junior guard Mason Falslev showed out for the Aggies with 15 points, three boards and four assists. Junior guard Karson Templin provided a spark in 23 minutes off the bench, going for 15 points and five rebounds.
Allen accompanied his 14 points with a team-best seven assists, while also pulling down five boards, two steals and a block.
In total, Utah State shot 50.0 percent (27-of-54) from the floor, 37.0 percent (10-of-27) from 3-point range and 83.3 percent (30-of-36) at the charity stripe. New Mexico shot 47.5 percent (29-of-61) from the field, 44.8 percent (13-of-29) from behind the arc and 73.1 percent (19-of-26) at the free throw line.
UP NEXT
Utah State will now travel to Las Vegas for the Mountain West men’s basketball tournament, taking place next week from March 11-14 at the Thomas & Mack Center. The Aggies will be the No. 1-seed and will play at 1 p.m. (MT).
FOLLOW
For more information on Utah State’s men’s basketball program, follow the Aggies on Facebook at usumensbasketball, on Twitter at @usubasketball and on Instagram at @usubasketball. Fans can also watch USU men’s basketball highlights by visiting youtube.com/utahstateathletics.
-USU-
New Mexico
Pentagon and FAA agree to conduct anti-drone laser tests in New Mexico
The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration agreed to conduct anti-drone laser tests in New Mexico after the military’s deployment of the lasers led the FAA to suddenly close airspace in Texas twice in the last month.
The newly announced testing was being carried out to “specifically address FAA safety concerns,” the military said Friday in a statement. It was to take place Saturday and Sunday at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
Lawmakers were concerned about an apparent lack of coordination after the Pentagon allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to use an anti-drone laser in early February without notifying the FAA. The federal agency that ensures safety in the skies decided to close the airspace over El Paso for a few hours, stranding many travelers.
The Trump administration said it was working to halt an incursion by Mexican cartel drones, which are not uncommon along the southern border.
On Feb. 26 the U.S. military used the laser to shoot down a “seemingly threatening” drone flying near the U.S.-Mexico border. It turned out the drone belonged to Customs and Border Protection, lawmakers said.
The incident led the FAA to close the airspace around Fort Hancock, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) southeast of El Paso.
“We appreciate the coordination with the Department of War to help ensure public safety,” the FAA said of the testing, in a separate statement. “The FAA and DOW are working with interagency partners to address emerging threats posed by unmanned aircraft systems while maintaining the safety of the National Airspace System.”
The military is required to formally notify the FAA when it takes any counter-drone action inside U.S. airspace.
Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth, the ranking member on the Senate’s Aviation Subcommittee, called previously for an independent investigation after the two February incidents.
-
Wisconsin1 week agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts6 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Maryland1 week agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Florida1 week agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Pennsylvania4 days agoPa. man found guilty of raping teen girl who he took to Mexico
-
Oregon1 week ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
News1 week ago2 Survivors Describe the Terror and Tragedy of the Tahoe Avalanche
-
Sports4 days agoKeith Olbermann under fire for calling Lou Holtz a ‘scumbag’ after legendary coach’s death