The Justice Department has sued the New Mexico Supreme Court and its Board of Bar Examiners in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. It claims that the Court’s and Board’s handling of military spouse attorneys violates the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act’s (SCRA) recent license‑portability provision.
It all started with one attorney’s bar‑admissions dispute.
Lawyer Makes Moves
The case centers on attorney Liam Lees. He trained in the U.K., was admitted in Scotland, England, and Wales, later earned an LL.M. from William and Mary, and is licensed and in good standing in Texas, Washington, and Maryland. Lees moved to New Mexico after his wife, an Air Force major, received orders to relocate. Soon after, the Third Judicial District Attorney’s Office offered him a trial‑attorney job, contingent on his admission to the New Mexico bar.
But right before the Lees moved, in 2024, Congress passed a law requiring states to treat a qualifying “covered license” from another state as valid for the same scope of practice when a servicemember or spouse relocates under orders and files a portability application. A license is “covered” if it’s active, in good standing, and free of discipline or pending unprofessional‑conduct investigations — all of which Lees’s licenses were.
How New Mexico Runs Its Bar
New Mexico’s admissions structure sets the stage for the dispute.
The state Supreme Court is the head of the Judicial Department, with the power to grant or withhold law licenses, and the Board of Bar Examiners serves as its admissions arm. The Board screens applicants under court‑adopted rules, recommends admission, and manages the steps that finalize licensure. Every bar applicant goes through the Board, which decides which files are forwarded and can effectively block admission by refusing to advance an application or by deeming it incomplete.
That division of roles is central to the DOJ’s theory that both the Court and the Board are “licensing authorities” under the SCRA and therefore share responsibility for complying with the federal portability rules.
Lees ran squarely into those rules. The New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners told him he was ineligible because he had only an LL.M. Rule 15‑202 requires bar applicants to hold a J.D. or bachelor of laws and letters, and expressly excludes a stand‑alone master of laws degree.
Blocked at the Bar
In February 2025, Lees petitioned the New Mexico Supreme Court for a waiver of that education requirement, but the court denied his request on a 3‑2 vote. He instead took a law clerk position at a much lower salary and later left the DA’s Office.
Once in his clerkship, Lees concluded he qualified for portability as a servicemember’s spouse who had relocated under orders and held covered licenses. He emailed the Board an SCRA portability application, attaching his spouse’s orders, their marriage certificate, confirming his good standing and lack of discipline in his licensing states, and fulfilling all other requirements.
Last November, the Board’s Executive Director directed Lees to apply through the online portal under Rule 15‑306, New Mexico’s limited‑license route for military spouses. It warned that his education might still disqualify him and that any fee would be non‑refundable if he was later found unqualified. Rule 15‑306 incorporates the same J.D./LL.B. requirement and adds more: to submit the online application, Lees had to provide materials the SCRA does not require, such as transcripts, test scores, and references, and pay non‑refundable fees for both the application and a full character‑and‑fitness investigation. The Executive Director later told him the Board considered his application incomplete because he lacked the required degree. The Board did not forward either portability application to the Supreme Court, and Lees withdrew the online application in December.
In January 2026, Lees sent the Board a Civil Rights Division letter explaining state bar and court obligations under federal law and asked whether the Board would change course and let him reinstate his application; the Board responded that it already had the letter and that its position and process had not changed. When Lees wrote to the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office about SCRA portability, staff replied that the Court could not consider ex parte communications about pending or impending matters.
U.S. Department of Justice Gets Pulled In
Lees then turned to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The First Assistant U.S. Attorney wrote the Chief Justice and the Board Chair, outlining servicemembers’ and spouses’ rights under § 4025a and urging them to grant portability to Lees, while Lees submitted another SCRA application to the Board. The Board again did not forward his application.
In a March 3, 2026 letter, the Board Chair took the position that § 4025a applies only to “licensing authorities,” asserted that the Board is not such an authority because it does not issue licenses (those being issued and regulated only by the Supreme Court), and emphasized the Court’s ultimate control over admission. Later, the Supreme Court told the DOJ that it is not covered by the SCRA because attorney licensing is not its primary purpose.
After an unsuccessful June 9 videoconference among counsel, the federal government filed suit.
The Lawsuit’s Bottom Line
The complaint alleges a single cause of action: violation of 50 U.S.C. § 4025a, enforced under 50 U.S.C. § 4041. The DOJ claims that since December 23, 2024, the Court and Board have refused to recognize covered licenses of servicemembers and spouses who moved to New Mexico on military orders, rejected at least one SCRA‑qualified applicant, and forced servicemembers and spouses into an application process more onerous than the SCRA allows. It zeroes in on Rule 15‑306: even in the “military spouse” lane, New Mexico still requires a J.D. or equivalent, extensive documentation, New Mexico-specific coursework, and a broad character‑and‑fitness probe that, in DOJ’s view, goes well beyond the statute’s limited background‑check authority.
New Mexico frames the suit as a threat to its ability to vet lawyers and points to at least one military spouse already admitted under its existing procedures. Whatever the district court decides, the case is likely to matter beyond one DA’s office in Las Cruces. A ruling for the DOJ would provide a concrete federal blueprint for how SCRA license‑portability must interact with state bar rules. Whatever outcome we see will be useful for military servicemembers, regulators, military‑community employers, and other licensing bodies.
