Latest news with #HouseBill544
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
State lawyers ask federal appeals court to restore ‘banned concepts' law
Teachers who violate the law are in breach of the educator code of conduct and may be punished by the State Board of Education. (Photo by) The New Hampshire Attorney General's Office argued before a federal appeals court Tuesday that a federal district court was wrong when it struck down a 2021 state law barring teachers from endorsing certain concepts related to race and gender. Appearing before the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, the Attorney General's Office argued that the earlier decision should be reversed and the law should be allowed to take effect. Mary Triick, a lawyer for the Attorney General's Office, disagreed with the district court that the law was too vague, and said the plaintiffs had improperly filed the lawsuit before the law had been applied against anyone. Lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include teachers unions, countered that the law is too difficult to follow and that it would unconstitutionally chill classroom discussions if allowed to stand. The law, passed via House Bill 544 and later added to the 2021 budget bill, bars educators and public employees from endorsing any of four concepts: that people of one protected class such as race, gender, or sexual orientation are superior to those of another protected class; that people of one class are inherently oppressive of people of another class; that people of one class should receive adverse treatment compared to people of another class; and that people should not attempt to treat others without regard to their protected class. Teachers who violate the law are in breach of the educator code of conduct and may be punished by the State Board of Education, which may take a number of actions, including suspending the teacher's license. The law, often referred to by opponents as the 'divisive concepts law,' was inspired by an executive order signed by President Donald Trump near the end of his first term, and came about as Republicans began voicing concerns that 'critical race theory' was being taught in public schools. In May 2024, Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire invalidated the law, ruling that the provisions amounted to 'viewpoint-based restrictions on speech,' that they were too vague for educators to follow without fear of arbitrary enforcement, and that they violated the 14th Amendment. Nearly a year later, Triick argued the law does provide clear guidelines for teachers to follow. And she noted that federal case law and New Hampshire statute both say that state and local governments are allowed to curtail and direct public school teachers' speech so long as it is speech directly related to their teaching. 'The reason teachers don't have First Amendment protections in their curricular speech is because it doesn't offend the First Amendment when the state says, 'we have these public schools and we are going to control what our students are taught in the public schools, and we're going to hire teachers to teach those things,'' she said. She added: 'I do think that we can get to a point if you say that the state cannot control that speech, can that teacher say anything to that student? Like, what if the teacher is saying that the beliefs of the Nazis were a good idea? Like, the state obviously has a right to control that speech.' Triick also noted the plaintiffs had filed the lawsuit without being able to point to a specific case in which the new laws had been unfairly applied to teachers or other public employees — a move known as a 'pre-enforcement facial vagueness challenge.' Without such a case, the district court should not have struck down the law, Triick said. 'Nobody has had this statute enforced against them,' she said. 'Nobody's due process rights have been violated. And so it's reasonable to say when we're talking about a federal court invalidating a state statute that has never been enforced, that has never been interpreted by the state court, that you need to meet a high standard. You need to prove that there's no set of circumstances under which it could be constitutionally and reasonably enforced.' Attorneys for the plaintiffs, meanwhile, pointed to extensive interviews they had conducted with New Hampshire state officials as part of the discovery process in which they said those officials could not answer questions about how the law should be applied. The responses indicate the law is hard to interpret even for the departments charged with carrying out the law, argued Charles Moerdler, a lawyer for Stroock & Stroock & Lavan in New York, representing the plaintiffs. 'They don't know, and they are enforcing it on a basis they don't know,' Moerdler said. And Gilles Bissonnette, legal director at the ACLU of New Hampshire, maintained the argument that the law is unconstitutionally vague and a suppression of the First Amendment. The lines between when a teacher is promoting discussion of a banned concept and when a teacher is directly endorsing that concept are too blurry to effectively navigate, Bissonnette said. 'An educator doesn't know,' he said. 'If I just assign a topic, if I … have students play devil's advocate, if I even … have students engage in the Socratic method, are they covered? …How are educators supposed to know?' New Hampshire Republican lawmakers are currently trying to amend the divisive concepts law, which is still on the state's statutes despite being struck down last year. House Bill 50, which passed the House in March, would change the law so that a teacher could be punished by the State Board of Education only after 'intentional or knowing violation' of the law. Judges on the circuit court asked sharp questions of both sides. They asked Triick how teachers should follow the law if it is unclear when a teacher is interacting with a student outside of their official duties — and is thus protected by the First Amendment — and when a teacher is acting within their official duties. They also questioned how teachers could lead nuanced discussions without accidentally falling afoul of the law. But they also challenged plaintiffs to cite any precedent in which a similar law was struck down on vagueness or free speech arguments before that law has been applied to anyone. They suggested the struggle of New Hampshire officials to answer questions about the new law could simply be because the law has not been tested yet. 'I think the problem here with just evaluating this in individual cases is that the underlying fear and harm, whether or not First Amendment interests are implicated here, is that there is inherent chill in the classroom, including curricular speech, regardless of whether it's protected,' said Bissonnette.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
State court strikes down two abortion laws passed in '23
Photo illustration by Getty Images. A Lewis and Clark County District Court judge has struck down two abortion bills passed into law in 2023 by the Montana Legislature and signed by Gov. Greg Gianforte, saying they violated the constitutional rights of women by subjecting those on Medicaid to onerous, unnecessary and possibly dangerous steps in order to receive an abortion. Judge Mike Menahan leaned heavily on decades' worth of court decisions which covered very similar ground, but said requirements put into law in 2023, were unnecessary and treated women who were struggling financially differently just because they elect to have an abortion. The laws were nearly immediately halted by the courts. Meanwhile, the state had argued that the Legislature had a legitimate interest in health and safety of women and infants, while also being allowed to choose what procedures the state covers through its government-supported healthcare programs. House Bill 544 and House Bill 862 would have barred abortions by any other provider than a doctor, eliminating advanced care providers. It would would have required a pre-authorization approval, a physical examination, and 'extensive supporting documentation' including a provider having to justify why the procedure is 'medically necessary.' Some of that documentation included personal questions including how many pregnancies the woman had previously had — something not required of other patients, including other Medicaid recipients who chose to carry the pregnancy to term. HB 862 would have prohibited abortions for Medicaid patients unless the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, or the mother was 'in danger of death.' Menahan found once Montana agrees to running a medical assistance program, it can't then decide which medical procedures it condones. 'The relevant inquiry is not whether the right of privacy requires the state to fund abortions, but whether, having elected to participate in a medical assistance program, the state may selectively excluded from such benefits otherwise eligible persons solely because they constitutionally protected healthcare decisions with which the state disagrees,' the ruling said. Menahan found that additional steps and burdens the new laws placed upon pregnant women were not justifiable. For example, requiring an in-person abortion, or requiring a physician, rather than an advanced-practice nurse or doctor's assistant, was not justified when medical research proves no basis that physicians are better at abortion procedures or in-person abortions lower the risk. 'The undisputed facts likewise establish that the prior authorization requirements in the rule and HB 544 do not address a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk. The unrequited testimony establishes that the requirements would require patients to make an extra in-person visit to a healthcare provider for a physical examination,' Menahan wrote in his opinion. 'The physical examination would result in delays that harm patient health; and would in practice ban direct-to-patient medication abortions which have been done safely via telehealth for years without the need for any in-person visit. 'The state admits it has no evidence that medication abortions provided via telehealth are any less safe or effective than abortions provided in-person. Further, the state has failed to demonstrate that the requirements for prior authorization are narrowly tailored to effectuate any state interest.' Menahan also drew on Montana's robust and still-growing case law when it came to HB 862, which would narrow when abortions could be an option for Medicaid patients, only allowing for it in cases of rape, incest or the woman's life is in danger. The court found that HB 862 was nearly identical to a case decided in 1995, Jeannnette R. vs. Ellery. 'Jeannnette R. declared unconstitutional a regulation that did the very same thing,' Menahan wrote. 'And the court has no reason before it to disturb the holding of that case.' The groups which waged the legal fight against these laws, including Planned Parenthood of Montana, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, Blue Mountain Clinic and All Families Healthcare, put out a joint statement after receiving the ruling on Tuesday afternoon: 'Every Montanan deserves the ability to access quality, timely healthcare, regardless of where they live or how much money they make. We are relieved that these dangerous restrictions have been struck down for good, and that patients will continue to have the access that these laws would have forbidden. The government has been relentless in their attempts to undermine healthcare without a thought for the consequences of for patients' health and lives. Montanans made their voices heard last year when they voted to further protect abortion rights, sending a clear message that politicians have no place in exam rooms. With this win, we will continue our fight to ensure everyone in Montana can make their own decisions about their own lives.' Abortion 23 measures decision 031225
