New Mexico Bar Examiners Sued Over Military Spouse Law Licenses

What happened

On June 11, 2026 the United States filed a complaint against the New Mexico Supreme Court and the New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners, a standing committee of the court, in federal district court in New Mexico. The complaint alleges a pattern or practice, from December 23, 2024 onward, of refusing to treat out-of-state law licenses held by qualifying servicemembers and military spouses as valid under 50 U.S.C. § 4025a. These are allegations in a pending case; the DOJ case page, read October 10, 2026, lists only the complaint.

According to the complaint, the military spouse at its center was first trained and admitted in the United Kingdom, holds an LL.M. from an ABA-accredited American law school, and is licensed in Texas, Washington and Maryland. The complaint says his wife, an Air Force major, received PCS orders in April 2024 from Joint Base Langley-Eustis to Holloman Air Force Base, and the couple moved to Las Cruces. It alleges the Third Judicial District Attorney's Office offered him a trial attorney job in early 2025, contingent on admission, that the Board told him he was ineligible because he holds an LL.M. rather than a juris doctor or bachelor of laws and letters degree, and that the Supreme Court denied his waiver petition 3-2 without comment on April 14, 2025. The complaint says he took a law clerk job at the same office at a significantly lower salary.

The complaint alleges he applied for portability under Section 4025a on November 12, 2025, with his wife's orders, their marriage certificate and a notarized affidavit, and again on February 17, 2026. It alleges the Board directed him instead to its military spouse limited license under Rule 15-306, whose online portal required transcripts, test scores, references and non-refundable fees for the application and a character and fitness investigation, then called that application incomplete, and that the Board did not submit any of his applications to the Supreme Court.

The defendants' positions, as the complaint reports them, line up with the two halves of the statute's definition of a licensing authority. The complaint quotes a March 3, 2026 letter from the Board's chair stating that the Board is not “authorized to issue licenses,” and says the Supreme Court wrote on May 15 and June 5, 2026 suggesting it is not covered because attorney licensing is not its primary purpose. Section 4025a(f)(3) defines a licensing authority as a State board, commission, department, or agency established for the primary purpose of regulating the entry of persons into, or the conduct of persons within, a particular profession, and authorized to issue licenses.

The law behind this: 50 U.S.C. § 4025a

Portability of professional licenses of servicemembers and their spouses: read the statute , or read § 4025a in plain English, with its enforcement record .

State supreme courts and bar associations in other states should take note of this lawsuit and come into full compliance with the SCRA immediately, or risk a lawsuit by the Department of Justice.

This lawsuit highlights the fact that license portability is a critical tool for our military spouses to be able to earn a living in the manner of their choosing.

Who was covered

The complaint names one aggrieved military spouse and alleges, on information and belief, that other servicemembers and military spouses may also have been refused since December 23, 2024, the date Pub. L. 118-159 amended Section 4025a in full, according to the U.S. Code's 2024 edition. It asks for relief for anyone the complaint says was denied portability or forced through a more burdensome process than the SCRA permits. Whether any of that is proven is for the court to decide in the pending case.

What the settlement paid

• None. This is a complaint, and the DOJ case page listed no settlement, consent order or judgment when it was read on October 10, 2026.
• The complaint asks the court to declare that the defendants violated the SCRA, to order them to recognize covered licenses, to award damages to aggrieved servicemembers and spouses under 50 U.S.C. § 4041(b)(2), and to assess civil penalties under § 4041(b)(3). Those are requests in a pending case, not results.
• The complaint puts no dollar figure on any loss. It alleges the spouse lost income because he could not accept the trial attorney position and earned significantly less as a law clerk.

Why this case matters

This is the only Justice Department lawsuit over Section 4025a in the ledger, and it is pending. By the complaint's account, the defendants contend that bar admission falls outside the statute's definition of a licensing authority, the Board because it does not issue licenses and the Supreme Court because licensing is not its primary purpose. The Georgia boards settled the same kind of allegation in March 2026. Until a court rules, a military spouse attorney facing a PCS to New Mexico should treat portability there as contested, not settled.