From U of Nebraska Adjunct Professor Rick Tast
regarding cease and desist orders, from Gov Michelle Lujan Grisham, to small businesses:

All this was done via Exec. Order, EO; EO’s are not law, and funny you mention this as I finished drafting a letter of challenge to an EO in Arizona for a friend. Your friends are in fact having their rights violated in defiance of the Article IV, Section 26, NM Constitution, as well a violation of their 4thA protection; their business being closed in fact, in law, a “seizure” of their property; a seizure must be committed only with a warrant. There was a Herbal store somewhere in NM which I read about on a FB page that told the NM state cops that showed up, when they threatened to close her, to leave, and come back with a warrant, and also to call her lawyer; they left.

One must understand an EO is not law over the private citizens; an EO only has force and effect of law “WITHIN the executive branch over any, and all agencies in that branch. I don’t want to go to deep and at length here but it’s fairly simple. Art IV, Sec. 26 I mention states no special privilege, under law, can be given to one entity, a person or business, that does not inure(is granted/applies) equally to all others. Since an EO is not law, a governor CANNOT make law, so for a cop to obtain a warrant the cop would have to go to a judge and swear under oath, on a signed/notarized Affidavit, he has evidence of a crime and needs to seize the property; the judge will ask the law the cop is acting under; the cop has NO actual law, one made by the legislature, the only branch in government that can make law(the gov. can NOT make law) the cop, legitimately, cannot cite a law; he’d have to tell the judge he’s acting under an EO. A wise judge at that point would tell the cop to get out of his court room; an unwise judge who would sign such a warrant, based on an EO and will have placed him/herself in a serious lawsuit, along with the cop.
When we speak of a seizure of property we are not just speaking about taking(seizing) something physical; the business is property; the labor the people who own the store and put into the store is “property”; the loss of income from the closure is a seizure.

For a short example of this here is a short cite from a court case as how the court views what constitutes a seizure;
A “seizure” of property occurs when “there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 .
By closing this business, under threat, and they WERE threatened, did the cops interfere with their possessory interests(an interest in their possession, business, profits)? Yes, they did. And when this business was closed while a similar business sold similar merchandise was allowed to stay open, that is a violation of Art. IV, Sec. 26.

It was also, to a great degree, a violation of their 5th amendment taking clause absent “due process; their livelihood was taken from them WITHOUT a court hearing(due process).

Your friends have a helluva a lawsuit, as do many, many retailers in New Mexico.