New justice draws high praise from colleagues
Nakamura’s replacement served four years on state Court of Appeals
Newly appointed state Supreme Court Justice Julie Vargas comes from a family of lawyers and has known since she was a teenager that she wanted to practice law.
“I remember being at the mall with my dad as a young girl, around 13, and a woman ran up to him and said, ‘Mr. Vargas, Mr. Vargas, thank you so much,’ “the new justice said in a recent interview. “He had helped her family with a case and she was so grateful and so relieved. I’ll never forget the look on her face. And I thought, ‘I want to be able to make people look like that.’ So I’ve known since I was young that’s what I was going to do.”
Vargas’ father died in 2015, so he never got the chance to see his daughter appointed to the state’s highest court.
“He never would have thought I’d be doing this,” she said. “He really would have been blown away. That’s the bittersweet part of getting this job.”
But Vargas said she gets plenty of support from her brother, Ray Vargas II, a well-connected Albuquerque medical malpractice lawyer.
“He’s my lifelong partner,” she said. “He’s my buddy.”
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham appointed Vargas, 52, to the New Mexico Supreme Court earlier this month. She fills a vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Judith K. Nakamura, a Republican. Her appointment means all the justices on the five-member court are now Democrats, but Vargas said: “I’m faithful to the law, not a party.”
Vargas was born and raised in Albuquerque and obtained an undergraduate degree in history and English literature at Brown University in Rhode Island before earning her law degree from the University of New Mexico.
She spent several decades in private practice, where she handled primarily commercial and real estate cases, and served for four years on the state Court of Appeals.
Earlier this year, she wrote a much-anticipated opinion in a high profile case involving questions about the Governmental Conduct Act. The ruling resulted in some charges being dropped against former Taxation and Revenue Secretary Demesia Padilla, who faced allegations of using her office for personal gain. But it also resulted in charges being reinstated against other public officials around the state who had been accused of abusing the power of their offices.
Vargas concluded that some segments of the act were too vague to be used as the basis for charging Padilla and recommended reworking the law. The ruling has been appealed to the Supreme Court, where it is pending.
While serving on the Court of Appeals, Vargas said she and fellow judges “performed what can only be described as a Herculean feat,” working overtime to clear a backlog that had built up after a series of retirements.
The Court of Appeals “normally files about 270 to 289 opinions per year,” Vargas said. “We filed 389 last year to make sure we cleared up our backlog and got the parties the decisions they were entitled to.”
Helping the state’s lower courts get back up to speed following pandemic-related postponements will be one of the most pressing issues facing the state Supreme Court justices over the next few years, Vargas said.
“We are going to be behind, and we are going to have to evaluate how we can make up some of that ground when this is over,” she said.
Vargas got high marks from judges who worked with her on the appellate court.
“Julie is just genuinely a good person,” said retired Court of Appeals Judge Monica Zamora, who worked with Vargas before retiring in January. “She’s smart. She is reliable. She is trustworthy. She is just a really great person to have around. She works well with everybody, not just the judges.”
Zamora also said Vargas doesn’t shy away from difficult cases and is generous with her time and knowledge.
Court of Appeals Judge Zach Ives said Vargas wrote “excellent” opinions and “in addition to being a good judge, she is a top-notch administrator, which is something a Supreme Court Justice has to be to be successful.”
Vargas said “patience” is one of the most important traits for a Supreme Court justice.
“There is a tendency we all have to read some facts in a case and react one way or another,” she said. “But you have to be sure you are patient and are going through the record and taking all of it in before you come to any conclusion about how a case is going to come out,” she said.
Vargas said patience is also important when dealing with colleagues.
“Lawyers can be strong-willed and opinionated,” she said. “You have to be thoughtful and patient when you deal with them and hope they are going to be thoughtful and patient when they are dealing with you.”
New Mexico Supreme Court justices are paid about $148,000 per year and serve eightyear terms.
They can come to the bench through appointment or election, but if appointed they must be elected by voters in the next partisan election to remain on the bench. After that, they must run in retention elections at the end of each term and must be affirmed by at least 57 percent of those who vote to stay on the job.
Vargas is no stranger to campaigning for a statewide office.
When she sought appointment to the Court of Appeals in 2016, then-Gov. Susana Martinez chose to appoint Stephen French instead.
Undeterred, Vargas ran against French in that fall’s general election and won the seat.
During that election, she was the target of an attack ad paid for by Justice First New Mexico, a political action committee that accused her of being soft on crime, even though Vargas had never handled a criminal case at that time.
She said she’s since gained experience with criminal law on the Court of Appeals, where she said she’s written about 50 to 60 opinions in criminal cases.
Vargas said she’s undaunted by the prospect of having to campaign again, which she’ll have to do in 2022.
“I’ve done it once and I’m ready to do it again,” she said. “It was actually a really great experience and I got to hear people’s concerns about the judiciary that [as judges] you don’t often get to hear.”
Vargas said she especially valued hearing from voters the ways in which the courts had failed them.
“It’s painful,” she said. “But how else in our closed little circle are we going to know unless people are telling us? We need to hear those things from the public.”