As the jurisprudence becomes broader on when a government actor enjoys qualified immunity and the instances where a citizen can hold that government actor accountable becomes more limited, beginning with this Court's guidance in Harlow v. Fitzerald 457 U.S. 800 (1982) requiring that a person's violated rights must be "clearly established," id., there is a question of at what point, perhaps like the one this case presents, that should define when a grant of qualified immunity to the government Respondents that have interfered with free speech on the basis of content has gone too far.

Thus, the question presented is: Did the lower courts err in dismissing Petitioners' case on the basis of Qualified Immunity in the face of US Supreme Court precedent and New Mexico jurisprudence clearly establishing the right that was violated?

Did the lower courts err in dismissing Petitioners' case on the basis of Qualified-Immunity