New Hampshire is known for upholding the highest standards for freedom. We are one of only nine states that protects income from government taxation, and one of just five states with no sales tax. “Live Free or Die” is a way of life that Granite Staters embrace.
Yet a significant flaw in New Hampshire constitutional law keeps justice for violations of our constitutional rights out of reach for Granite Staters. While the U.S. Constitution provides relief for past, ongoing, or threatened future violations of rights, our state courts have held that the New Hampshire Constitution provides no relief for past constitutional violations. Instead, citizens whose rights have been violated in the past are forced to rely on federal courts and the federal Constitution. HB 614 fixes that constitutional oversight.
Take for example, M.P., a former Exeter High School student, who was suspended from the football team after expressing his view on the school bus that there are only two genders and later restating this view via text in an exchange initiated by an antagonistic peer. The Rockingham Superior Court found the school had likely violated M.P.’s rights and even lied about it. However, despite this positive finding, the judge ruled he could provide no legal remedy for M.P.’s grievances under the New Hampshire Constitution. Consequently, the judge could not legally award even the $1 in nominal damages the student sought. Nor could he award declaratory damages – the judge’s ability to simply say that the school acted illegally and M.P. won.
If one’s constitutional rights were violated in the past, the person is entitled to no relief under New Hampshire’s existing constitutional protections. HB 614, introduced by Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R – Carroll 7), aims to fix this injustice, ensuring that Granite Staters do not have to rely on the mercy of federal law and federal courts to protect their rights. This protection will make New Hampshire more sovereign and more free.
HB 614 simply clarifies that, under New Hampshire state law, citizens are entitled to a remedy in court whenever there is a completed, or past, violation of their state constitutional rights. The need for such a bill likely comes as a shock to many Granite Staters who assume our constitution mirrors the federal constitution in providing retrospective relief for rights violations. However, this is not the case. The judge presiding over M.P.’s trial affirmed as much, stating that M.P. might have been awarded damages had he filed his suit in federal court instead of in New Hampshire’s state court.
M.P.’s situation is the most high-profile, but he is far from the only Granite Stater who would have benefited or will benefit from this change to the law. During the House Judiciary Committee’s executive meeting on HB 614 held March 10th, Rep. Donald McFarlane (R – Grafton 18) said one of his constituents, another student, similarly faced disciplinary measures for her speech outside of school. Yet, facing opposition to the bill from the progressive New Hampshire Municipal Association, only Rep. McFarlane and three other Republicans supported the bill in committee. These members deserve to be thanked for standing up for Granite Staters’ constitutional rights:
Rep. Katelyn Kuttab – Rockingham 17
Rep. Louise Andrus – Merrimack 5
Rep. Kristine Perez – Rockingham 16
Rep. Donald McFarlane – Grafton 18
The battle to pass HB 614 isn’t over. The bill will be voted on by the full House during a legislative session in the coming weeks. Please make sure your representatives know pro-liberty Granite Staters support this bill. Find your representative HERE, and ask them to vote OTP on HB 614 today.
FAQ
If HB 614 becomes law, will it lead to frivolous lawsuits or complex immunity claims?
New Hampshire courts already have an extensive body of case law for dealing with both of these issues. It stems from both our state courts as well as federal courts which regularly litigate alleged future and ongoing constitutional rights violations. There isn’t any reason that litigating alleged past rights violations would create discord in our justice system. On the contrary, objecting to HB 614 on this basis would deny relief for victims of constitutional rights violations and actually prevent New Hampshire courts from executing their explicit purpose of delivering justice.
Can’t tort law be used to award damages for past violations of constitutional rights?
In 2021, the United States Supreme Court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor on a couple of constitutional rights cases, Mahanoy v. B. L. and Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski. Both of these cases dealt with retrospective rights violations where tort law would not have provided relief.
In Mahanoy, a cheerleader’s rights were violated because her cheer coach attempted to police and control her off-campus speech. In Uzuegbunam, a student was prohibited from evangelizing on campus. Because the case dragged on until he had left school, the school attempted to dismiss the case as moot. SCOTUS awarded nominal damages to protect the student’s rights.
In neither of these cases would tort law have protected the victim’s rights. Neither plaintiff was defamed, battered, or subject to other torts.
Why is Cornerstone advocating that constitutional rights be protected via a new statute as opposed to litigation?
In hopes of securing justice, Cornerstone has appealed M.P.’s case and is representing him before the New Hampshire Supreme Court. If we win before the state supreme court, the precedent set should provide Granite Staters with retrospective relief for constitutional rights violations. The ruling would apply to free speech and religious freedom, but also free press, the right to bear arms, the right to petition the government, and all constitutional rights.
Even if we do prevail in our appeal, successful passage of HB 614 would serve to further strengthen and clarify the right to legal remedy for past violations of constitutional protections.
The United States Congress has acted similarly by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1871. This law acts as a backstop for protecting 14th Amendment rights and allows citizens to bring lawsuits either under Section 1983 of federal law or under the U.S. Constitution.
