#

New Hampshire’s largest teacher’s union supports so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) policies so much that it’s going to court to defend them.

The New Hampshire chapters of the National Educators Association and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Concord on Wednesday in response to the Trump administration’s DEI order.

The lawsuit claims the Trump administration is violating the Constitution by seeking to ban DEI practices and instruction. The complaint pinpoints the Feb. 14 letter that then-nominee for Education Secretary Linda McMahon sent to schools across the nation threatening a loss of funding if those institutions continue DEI programs as part of their educational offerings.

The letter defines DEI as programs that “teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not” and/or “stigmatize students who belong to racial groups.”

It’s part of the Trump administration’s attempt to end the practices promoted by President Joe Biden and his administration. Trump’s order instructs agencies to “terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements.”

The national NEA and ACLU are backing the New Hampshire lawsuit to block the Trump policy.

“Across the country, educators do everything in their power to support every student — no matter where they live, how much their family earns, or the color of their skin — ensuring each feels safe, seen, and prepared for the future. Now, the Trump administration is threatening to punish students, parents and educators in public schools for doing just that: fostering inclusive classrooms where diversity is valued, history is taught honestly, and every child can grow into their full brilliance,” said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association. 

Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said in a statement Wednesday’s lawsuit is similar to one he successfully brought against New Hampshire’s Department of Education in the wake of the state passing its education anti-discrimination law. That law banned teaching that one group of people is inherently superior or inferior to another and that people are inherently racist, sexist, etc., based on the group they are in, among other concepts.

“Like New Hampshire’s classroom censorship law that we successfully challenged in court, this unconstitutionally vague letter is an attack on educators who are simply doing their job,” Bissonnette said. “Teachers are already reporting being afraid to teach for fear of having their teaching deemed unlawful, and that deprives Granite State students of the complete education that they deserve.”

The lawsuit claims McMahon and Trump have no legal authority to dictate what gets taught in New Hampshire classrooms. New Hampshire teachers frequently use DEI programming as they see fit, the lawsuit states.

“They have incorporated issues of race, diversity, equity, and inclusion in the content and approach to their teaching, in their broader educational practices, and in training and support for educators, all in accordance with sound pedagogical practice,” according to the lawsuit.

“We’re urging the court to block the Department of Education from enforcing this harmful and vague directive and protect students from politically motivated attacks that stifle speech and erase critical lessons. Teaching should be guided by what’s best for students, not by threat of illegal restrictions and punishment.”

United States District Court Judge Landya McCafferty ruled again Tuesday to prevent New Hampshire from enforcing its law keeping biological males from participating in girls sports.

The judge extended a temporary order allowing 15-year-old Parker Tirrell to play on the Plymouth High School girls soccer team. Tirrell and 14-year-old Iris Turmelle have filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s new Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.

When Gov. Chris Sununu signed the law last month, he made New Hampshire the 26th state to pass laws protecting girls sports from male athletes.

New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella and his office are defending the law, both in New Hampshire and at the national level. His attorneys are in court before Judge McCafferty, and he’s joined 25 other state attorneys general urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.

“We remain committed to vigorously defending this new law and will determine next steps once the Court issues its order,” Formella said.

In New Hampshire, both sides have requested a bench trial, rather than a jury trial. McCafferty signaled during Tuesday’s hearing she will likely rule in favor of Tirrell and Turmelle, saying she believes the New Hampshire law violates Title IX, the law that protects women’s sports, and Title XII, the law against employment discrimination. 

If McCafferty does strike down the law, the decision to pursue an appeal will almost certainly be made by New Hampshire’s next governor. And if it is a Democrat, it’s all but certain the law will be allowed to die and girls will be competing against biological males once again.

Neither former Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig nor Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington would respond to questions about this case from NHJournal. However, they’ve both made it clear they oppose the new law.

“These bills are an attack on at-risk trans kids across New Hampshire. Our state needs leadership focused on delivering results, not division. As governor, I will always stand up for the right of our residents to live authentically, without demonization,” Craig said.

Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington, who is challenging Craig in the Democratic primary, linked banning boys from girls sports teams to violent hate crimes when the law was signed this summer.

“We’ve seen a rise in hate crimes against our LGBTQ+ community, in part because radical Republicans have villainized trans kids who’re already vulnerable & at a higher risk of suicide. When I’m governor, everyone will be free to love who they love & be who they are,” Warmington said on social media.

The two GOP candidates for governor have a very different view.

Chuck Morse, running against Kelly Ayotte in the GOP primary, says he’d fight for an appeal if elected.

“As governor, I would absolutely pursue an appeal if the court finds against the state. It is a question of fairness and protecting the rights of women to play sports on a level playing field. To me it is simple: boys should play against boys and girls should play against girls,” Morse said.

Ayotte agrees.

“As the only candidate for governor who has actually argued before the Supreme Court, I will do whatever it takes to defend our state. As the proud mom of a three-sport state champion female athlete, I believe protecting women’s sports is a matter of fairness. Women fought for decades to achieve that fairness through Title IX. When I am governor, New Hampshire’s female athletes will have a champion in the Corner Office,” Ayotte said.

Polls show Granite Staters overwhelmingly support allowing girls to compete in girls-only sports, rather than forcing them to compete against biological males who identify as female. It’s not just theory, either. A biological male took first place in the girls high jump competition earlier this year, beating every female in the New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association (NHIAA) indoor track and field championship.

At the global level, the top two boxers in women’s Olympic boxing both had male chromosomes.

Lawyers for Tirrell and Turmelle want to block the law from taking effect throughout the state, arguing that stopping transgender girls from playing girls sports is discriminatory.

“This law was designed to prevent trans girls from playing sports with other girls … The only difference is their sex assigned at birth. Girls not assigned female at birth are being excluded,” said Chris Erchull, an attorney with GLAD, the GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders organization which is representing Tirrell and Turmelle.

Assistant Attorney General Micheal DeGrandis argued legal precedent allows public institutions, like schools, to make distinctions between boys and girls. The New Hampshire law makes that distinction in an objective, equitable manner by requiring every student to play on sports teams that correspond to their biological sex at birth.

“We’re not trying to define ‘sex’ at all, we’re just saying ‘What does it say on your birth certificate,’” DeGrandis explained.

While the law might mean students like Tirrell and Turmelle are required to play coed sports instead, that does not make the law unconstitutional. The law was crafted as a way to protect competitive fairness in girls sports, and to keep biological girls safe from possible injury, DeGrandis said.

“There was no discriminatory intent or animus. This was an attempt to solve legitimate problems, even if people disagree with the best way to do it,” DeGrandis said.

The appropriate remedy for those opposed to the law should not be in court, DeGrandis said, but in the democratic political process, who noted there is an election happening in a few months.

“The Court should not be making decisions for the legislature,”  he said.

McCafferty extended the temporary restraining order that allows Tirrell to practice and play soccer with the girls team for another two weeks. McCafferty could rule on an injunction the teens are seeking against the law during that time. That injunction would likely be in place through any trial.

A federal judge ruled Monday that a male Plymouth Regional High School who identifies as a girl can still play on the girl’s soccer team.

United States District Court Judge Landya McCafferty, an Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order allowing Parker Tirrell, 15, to keep playing, in violation of HB 1205, the new law banning biological boys from girls sports.

The order only applies to Tirrell and no other students in New Hampshire. However, McCafferty said in her order that a more broad injunction against the law is possible following a hearing set for Aug. 27.

The cause of the high school sports careers of Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, a Pembroke Academy boy who also identifies as a transgender girl, is being championed by GLAAD and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire in the federal lawsuit filed earlier this month.

Turmelle is not playing on any fall sports teams and was not part of Monday’s hearing.

HB 1205 which took effect on Monday, was passed in the wake of a series of high-profile incidents in which biological males won girls championships or injured female competitors while playing girls sports in New England. But GLAAD lawyer Chris Erchull argued Monday that Tirrell has no physical advantages over the girls since having started hormone therapy, according to NHBulletin reporting.

Assistant Attorney General Michael DeGrandis argued against the temporary restraining order, telling McCafferty there is no need to block the law while the case is pending.

Monday’s hearing came as a social media rumor swirled that the state planned to make a deal on the temporary restraining order with Tirrell and the GLAD and ACLU lawyers. New Hampshire Department of Justice General Counsel Chris Bond told NHJournal no deal was ever in the works.

“There is not now and there never was a deal regarding entry of a TRO. The Attorney General’s Office is responsible for defending the duly enacted laws of the State of New Hampshire when they are challenged in court. Given that mandate, the AGO will not voluntarily assent to a TRO that would result in the temporary suspension of the provisions of [the law],” Bond said in an email.

Those on the left see McCafferty’s ruling as the first victory in abolishing the law.

“Transgender youth, like all adolescents, want and deserve every opportunity to experience joy, including through activities like school sports. We won’t stop fighting until they have that opportunity again,” the ACLU posted on social media.

Meanwhile, some on the right are frustrated, not by Monday’s ruling, but by the law itself. Cornerstone Action Executive Shannon McGinley said HB 1205 was doomed to fail due to the actions of Gov. Chris Sununu.

Last month, when Sununu signed HB 1205 to keep biological males out of girls sports he also vetoed HB 396, a law that would have made it legal for the state to make legal distinctions based on biological sex and separate men from women in bathrooms, locker rooms, and jails.

“The new law uses birth certificates as the definition of biological sex – an unwieldy and unworkable concept that has failed both practically and legally around the country,” McGinley said.

“What Gov. Sununu has just done is a fraud, not a compromise. He caved entirely to the most far left 10 percent of the state while giving nothing to female prisoners, athletes, and vulnerable students,” McGinley said.

For state Rep. Keith Ammon (R-New Boston), Tuesday’s ruling striking down the state’s anti-discrimination in education law meant one thing.

“Judge Barbadoro just put stopping Critical Race Theory back on the ballot in November.”

New Hampshire Democrats, teachers unions, and the state chapter of the ACLU all celebrated United States District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro’s decision to declare the law unconstitutional. The Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education law — often referred to by the judge and its critics as the “divisive concepts” law — was passed in 2021 in response to concerns about Critical Race Theory (CRT) content in classrooms. It barred any public employee from teaching or training others that race, sex, or other inherent characteristics made an individual racist, sexist, etc.

Democrats are delighted to see the law go.

“I am pleased that Judge Barbadoro recognized today what the Senate Democrats have said for years: the Republican’s ‘divisive concepts’ law is an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of Granite Staters,” said state Senate Democratic Leader Donna Soucy (D-Manchester).

And both Democrats running for governor confirmed Ammon’s prediction that the ruling would result in a partisan political battle.

Former Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig promised to shut down any Republican who tries to revive the law.

“As governor, I’ll stop any bill that threatens teachers’ ability to teach and prevents students from receiving an honest education,” Craig said.

Her fellow Democratic candidate for governor, Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington, said the law “sought to undermine public education by subjecting educators to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and penalties. I am relieved to see the court’s ruling today declaring this law unconstitutional.”

And House Democratic Leader Rep. Matt Wilhelm (D-Manchester) linked the law to GOP-backed legislation for keeping boys out of girls’ bathrooms and off of girls-only sports teams.

“Make no mistake—the Republican Party will stop at nothing to infringe upon our children’s freedom with nonsensical culture wars like their “divisive concepts” ban, book bans, sports bans, and bathroom bans,” Wilhelm said.

But Republicans blasted the ruling. Sen. Tim Lang (R-Sanbornton) said it will allow teachers to promote racist CRT-inspired ideology in public classrooms.

“Seems odd the court thinks it’s OK to allow teachers to teach, based on your race, you are inherently a victim or a perpetrator of racism. Which is what the ‘divisive concepts’ law prohibited, no person is inherently racist based on race,” Lang said. 

Chuck Morse, who’s running in the GOP primary for governor, helped craft the legislation and get it to Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk. He said he will work to push through a law that passes constitutional muster if elected.

“We must equip our students with the tools to think critically and engage with each other respectfully, without the influence of biased and discriminatory teachings,” Morse said. “My administration will prioritize transparency, and adherence to constitutional principles to ensure that any new legislation will stand up to judicial scrutiny and serve the best interests of our students.”

Teachers union president Deb Howes with the New Hampshire American Federation of Teachers disagrees, saying Tuesday’s ruling should be the end of the lesson. 

“This decision should put to rest the issue, and New Hampshire teachers will no longer have to live under a cloud of fear of getting fired for actually teaching accurate, honest education.” Howes said. 

Ironically, the ruling may boost support for the Education Freedom Account program Howes and her Democratic allies oppose. Parents who discover they can’t prevent their children from being labeled “racist” or “privileged” by their local public school may turn to the EFA program to send their kids elsewhere.

Before the law passed, CRT-based content was being used in school districts like Manchester, Laconia, and Litchfield. However, there is no record of any teacher or administrator being subjected to enforcement under the law.

Manchester School District’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Director Christina Kim Philibotte and Andres Mejia, the former DEI director at SAU 16, said the ruling will let teachers get back to caring for “students of color, students from the LGBTQ+ community, and students with historically marginalized identities.”

“It is critically important that students see themselves in the books they read and in the classroom discussions they have to ensure that they feel cared for and valued,” Philibotte and Mejia said in a joint statement.

Neo-Nazi leader Christopher Hood failed to respond to a civil rights lawsuit alleging he broke the law when he orchestrated his NSC-131 gang to violently protest a Drag Queen Story Hours event at the Teatotaler Cafe in Concord.

But don’t tell his donors. Hood’s already raised more than $17,000 for his legal defense through crowdfunding donation sites even after he was found in default on May 10.

Hood, a Massachusetts resident, allegedly led his masked supporters to be an intimidating and threatening presence at Teatotaler’s last summer. The hate group members shouted threatening white-power slogans and pounded on windows in an attempt to stop drag performer Juicy Garland from reading a children’s book, according to court records.

With Hood in default, he now faces the prospect of going straight to the judgment phase of the case without a trial on the evidence. The case is complicated by the fact NSC-131 as an entity was dismissed as a defendant in the case earlier this month as well.

Court records filed in Merrimack Superior Court indicate the group was not properly served with the lawsuit in the given timeframe, and dropped as a defendant. Michael Garrity, spokesman for the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, said lawyers with the Civil Rights Unit plan to appeal that decision.

“The Civil Rights Unit plans to ask the court to reconsider this order because NSC-131 was properly served as required by state law and served on time as required by the court,” Garrity said. “In that motion, the unit will ask the Court to reconsider the order, reinstate NSC-131 as party, and enter a notice of default against NSC-131 for failure to respond to the complaint as required by the court.”

Once NSC-131 is added back to the case, Garrity said the state will move to get the gang found in default just like Hood. The case can then go straight to judgment, and Garrity said the Attorney General’s Office will seek “appropriate penalties, restraining orders, and damages as provided for under state law.”

Hood’s online fundraising pitch asks for $100,000 for a legal defense that has multiple cases. NSC-131 is facing sanctions in Massachusetts and another New Hampshire case that’s gone to the state Supreme Court. 

Formella’s team brought civil rights charges against Hood and NSC-131 over its 2022 “white power” demonstration in Portsmouth. That case was dismissed last year on First Amendment grounds, but Formella is appealing to the state Supreme Court.

Hood has had difficulty in the past obtaining the services of a lawyer, but he may not have to try too hard this time. The NH-ACLU recently filed a brief in support of the neo-Nazis’ free-speech rights in the Portsmouth case.

“Simply because speech is harmful – and it undoubtedly is here – does not mean that it can be prohibited because of its viewpoint,” ACLU lawyers wrote.

Formella called the ACLU’s decision to weigh in on behalf of Hood and NSC-131 “disappointing.”

“Hate has no place in New Hampshire, and we will not sit idly by while organized hate groups like NSC-131 commit illegal acts for the purpose of harassing and even terrorizing our citizens,” Formella said. “As my office articulated in its opening brief to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, the right to engage in speech does not permit people to commit unlawful acts, such as the trespass that NSC-131 has been accused of committing.”

New Hampshire’s ACLU is siding with the producers of AI-created child sex abuse images over New Hampshire’s kids, critics say, opposing legislation to ban deepfake child porn in New Hampshire.

And at least one Democratic state senator says siding with criminals and against victims is nothing new for the progressive organization.

“It has been my experience in working for laws that protect crime victims the ACLU has not necessarily been a partner in protecting the rights of the people who have been harmed by criminals so much as protecting the rights of the criminals,” said Sen. Deb Altschiller (D-Stratham). “I have yet to have a criminal justice bill that they have embraced.”

Altschiller is the prime sponsor of SB564, which “expands the definition of ‘child’ under the child sexual abuse images statute to include those images that are portrayed to be a person under the age of 18 and are thus indistinguishable from a child.” She testified before the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee on Wednesday, and that’s when she first learned of the ACLU’s opposition to her legislation.

ACLU-NH Legal Director Gilles Bissonnette

Gilles Bissonnette, ACLU-NH’s Legal Director, did not testify in person. Instead, he submitted a written statement revealing his organization’s position: AI-generated child sex abuse images are protected speech under the First Amendment.

“These images are protected by the First Amendment and Part I, Article 22 insofar as they are neither produced using minors nor do they appear to depict a specific, identifiable person,” Bissonnette wrote.

Altschiller told the committee this expanded definition is needed as the scourge of child sex abuse image trafficking is colliding with the rise of easily available AI programs that can create new, realistic images, sometimes using the images of real children.

“Once something is out there, you can’t unring the bell,” Altschiller said.

New Hampshire State Police Sgt. Hawley Rae also testified on behalf of Altschiller’s legislation, arguing that people who consume child sex abuse images are statistically more likely to engage in abuse IRL (“In Real Life.”) 

New Hampshire already has a problem with people trafficking these types of abusive images, and the potential for abusers using deepfake technology to make new abuse images from the photos of real children should be sobering, Rae said.

“Kids are vulnerable, especially in the social media world, and I can only assume this will be a problem in the AI world as well,” Rae said.

Bissonnette’s objection to the bill is founded on prior court rulings that hold child sex abuse images created without using real children are protected. The 2002 United States Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech  Coalition and the 2008 New Hampshire Supreme Court decision in State v. Zidel both found that child sex abuse images that did not depict real children are allowed.

“SB564 presents serious constitutional concerns under Ashcroft and Zidel because it sweeps within its scope images that are not limited to depictions of an ‘identifiable’ (meaning ‘recognizable as an actual, specific person’) minor who was actually victimized,” Bissonnette wrote.

Rep. Terry Roy (R-Deerfield) said neither the Ashcroft nor Zidel courts were dealing with the reality of the new dangers children face today.

“The Ashcroft court didn’t have to contend with the AI technology at all,” Roy said.

Interestingly, the ACLU’s hardline “free speech” absolutism on child porn doesn’t apply to political speech Bissonnette and his organization find objectionable. The ACLU-NH’s policy today is to decline to defend free speech that “denigrates [marginalized] groups” and “impedes progress toward equality.” That includes refusing to defend the free speech rights of allegedly right-wing groups whose “values are contrary to our values” and whose words might offend the “marginalized.”

The ACLU’s guidelines state, “As an organization equally committed to free speech and equality, we should make every effort to consider the consequences of our actions.”

What about the “consequences” of graphic, violent child porn, critics ask.

Given the advances in technology, Rep. David Meuse (D-Portsmouth) said failing to act now could have dire consequences for New Hampshire’s children sooner rather than later.

“I feel that composite images today are so realistic … they’re virtually indistinguishable from an image of a real child. These images just create a market for more images,” Meuse said. “The very fact that a market for this type of material exists, if we continue to allow that market to exist, real children are going to be harmed.”

The committee voted unanimously to approve the bill, moving it closer to a full House vote.

A New Hampshire judge tossed a lawsuit from progressive organizations challenging the state’s new “affidavit ballot” law, designed to prevent voter fraud by ensuring every voter provides ID.

As soon as Gov. Chris Sununu signed the new law, known as SB418, last year, partisan organizations like 603Forward, Open Democracy Action, the ACLU, and several progressive activists filed suit. They were represented by former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Marc Elias, best known for his role in the now-debunked “Russia Collusion” dossier scandal.

Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Charles Temple ruled Friday none of the organizations or individuals challenging the law have a case.

Under the new law, voters who register on Election Day without state-required ID are given an affidavit ballot, which is not counted until their identity is verified. The voters are also given a packet of information, including a prepaid overnight envelope, in order to assist them in proving their identity.

Rep. Ross Berry (R-Manchester), chair of the House Election Law Committee, said the court made the right call.

“The court’s dismissal of these lawsuits is a resounding victory for common sense protections of our democratic process,” Berry told NHJournal. “Before SB418, any person could walk into any voting location on Election Day, register to vote without producing any ID or proof of residency, and be handed a ballot. This system was ripe for abuse — and we know it was abused. For example. a former Democrat poll worker voted in the morning, went to his car, put on a wig, then registered as a woman, and cast a second ballot.”

New Hampshire Democrats have long opposed voter ID requirements, and all four members of the federal delegation have voted to let the federal government override states’ voter ID laws.

The plaintiffs, including former Rep. Manny Espitia and progressive activists Dan Weeks and Louise Spencer, argued the law misuses taxpayer money, forcing the Secretary of State’s Office to pay for the information packets, envelopes, and postage. Temple rejected their argument, writing that the state spending money on stamps does not equal a significant constitutional violation.

“These minimal expenditures bear little to no relationship to the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims,” Temple wrote.

Espitia declined to comment when reached by NHJournal.

Organizations like 603Forward tried claiming SB 418 was forcing them to engage in preparing new voters to deal with the law and diverting resources and funds they would have used for other purposes. Temple, again, did not buy that argument, writing the groups failed to identify any actual constitutional rights that were being denied because of SB 418. 

Lucas Meyers with 603Forward declined to comment. 

Chris Ager, chairman of the New Hampshire GOP, applauded the ruling, saying Granite Staters who want secure elections can rest easy.

“This decision is a big step forward in the ongoing effort to ensure the integrity of New Hampshire’s elections,” Ager said. “New Hampshire Republican legislators took the lead on this very important issue. I applaud the court’s decision to further secure our elections for all who cast a ballot. The vast majority of Americans and Granite Staters want voter ID and secure elections, and that’s what New Hampshire Republicans are delivering.”

Secretary of State Dave Scanlan, whose office was a defendant in the case, tried staying above the fray when reached for comment. 

“Judge Temple’s decision is clear and speaks for itself. We have no additional comment,” Scanlan said.

The SB 418 lawsuit is open to appeals, and it is not yet known if the plaintiffs will bring their case to the state Supreme Court or if they will file a motion asking Temple to reconsider his decision first.

New Hampshire moms and dads lose the right to parent their children once that child enters a public school, according to the New Hampshire ACLU.

The state’s largest civil liberties organization is standing with the Manchester public schools and against a local mom suing the district over a policy that directs staff to lie to parents about the sexual and gender behavior of their own children while at school.

“Schools and parents are natural partners in advancing the education and well-being of their students. At the same time, schools must control the learning environment for the benefit of all students,” the ACLU’s brief stated.

The mother, known as Jane Doe in her lawsuit, is appealing her case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court after Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Amy Messer ruled parents ultimately do not have the right to direct how their children are to be educated in public schools.

“(T)he right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of one’s child is not absolute,” Messer wrote.

Republicans have responded by filing a Parents Bill of Rights in the legislature, a measure that polls show has overwhelming support among Granite State voters.

Jane Doe’s attorney, Richard Lehmann, said Wednesday the ACLU is backing a policy that flies in the face of the constitutional rights of parents.

“Manchester has taken the position that parental rights should not pass the schoolhouse door,” Lehmann said.

Jane Doe stated in her original complaint that she found out in the fall of 2021 her child was using a different pronoun and gender identity at school. The school’s name was withheld in court documents to protect the child’s identity. 

The mother spoke with the school staff, including the student’s guidance counselor. The mother made it clear she wanted her child to be called by the name and pronouns the child had at birth while in school, according to the lawsuit.

Even though the staff she spoke to initially agreed, the mother soon received an email from the school principal stating that, due to district policy, the mother’s instructions were being overridden. The principal stated the policy required school staff to keep such matters secret from parents if the child so chooses, according to the lawsuit. Even if staffers agree to use the child’s true gender identity when speaking with the mother, they would be obligated not to tell the mother if the child wished to be identified as something else.

The policy states teachers and staff are not to tell anyone about a child’s gender identity without the express consent of the child. School employees are also directed to use the child’s biological pronouns and given name when talking about the child to people who do not know about the nonconforming gender identity.

While the ACLU traditionally supports individual citizens in the face of government action, in this case, it is siding with education officials at the government-run school. Their brief claimed school staff often knows things about children their parents do not, and that staffers should not be required to tell parents anything unless the student agrees.

“To force a disclosure by the school that in all likelihood would otherwise come directly from the student voluntarily once the young person is ready, or when parents raise questions about their own observations with the young person, would be the very insertion into family relationships to which the plaintiff-appellant objects,” the ACLU wrote.

That schools-over-parents stance is also held by the New Hampshire Democratic Party. Chairman Ray Buckley claims if parents are informed about the behavior of their children “some kids will be beaten to death.” (There are no known incidents in New Hampshire of a child being beaten to death by a parent over their sexual or gender behavior.)

Lehmann agrees with the ACLU that schools do need a certain amount of autonomy, but said the ACLU and the Manchester School District are ignoring the fact that parents are the primary educators for their children, a role enshrined in the New Hampshire Constitution.

“(The schools) have to control the learning environment while adhering to all the other constitutional norms that permeate our society, including parental rights,” Lehmann said.

Lehmann said a law affirming the rights of parents could clarify the matter. New Hampshire Republicans tried and failed to pass a parental bill of rights during the last legislative session. The proposal died after Gov. Chris Sununu signaled he would veto the bill over concerns raised by New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella about the privacy and safety of students.

A new Parents Bill of Rights, sponsored by House Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) and Senate Majority Leader Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry) is currently before the legislature.

Backed into a corner by a steady stream of negative press over the city’s homeless crisis, Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig got the legal go-ahead to clear a downtown homeless encampment.

Craig announced the evictions earlier this month in response to public outcry over the encampments downtown, with the original plan to clear the streets by Tuesday. However, the New Hampshire ACLU filed for a temporary restraining order to block the city from removing the homeless people, halting Craig’s plans.

On Tuesday, Superior Court Judge John Kissinger ruled the city can remove the approximately 50 homeless people from the sidewalk as the encampment represents a danger to the community at large.

Kissinger cited recent deaths, as well as close to 400 calls for police service at the camp, including assaults and drug overdoses.

“Considering the grave risks to public health and safety posed by the ongoing presence of the encampment on public sidewalks in downtown Manchester and the availability of safe alternatives for the people living in the encampment, a temporary restraining order is not justified,” Kissinger wrote.

Craig announced Tuesday the camps will be cleared Wednesday, with space being made available through a partnership with the YMCA to create a women’s shelter at the former Tirrell House. That space is the result of Gov. Chris Sununu’s intervention at the state level.

The city is also opening a temporary warming shelter with cots at the William B. Cashin Activity Center.

“City employees and non-profit partners have been working around the clock to ensure the health and safety of both the individuals experiencing homelessness in Manchester and the community at large,” Craig said in a statement released Tuesday afternoon.

Craig’s staff did not respond to NHJournal when asked if there would be enough space for all the homeless people being evicted.

Stephen Tower, a staff attorney with New Hampshire Legal Assistance, expressed disappointment in Kissinger’s ruling and cast doubt on Craig’s ability to adequately shelter the people she is evicting.

“Without a plan to immediately relocate and provide a higher level of shelter and services, this eviction will only perpetuate the cycle of chasing these houseless individuals from place to place, alienating and endangering them further,” Tower said.

Gillies Bissonnette, legal director with the New Hampshire ACLU, did not respond to a request for comment.

Also on Tuesday, Sununu sent a pointed response to a recent letter from Craig and seven other Democratic mayors attempting to shift the blame for their communities’ homeless problems onto the state. Craig, Nashua Mayor Jim Donchess, Berlin Mayor Paul Grenier, Franklin Mayor Jo Brown, Dover, Mayor Bob Carrier, Somersworth Mayor Dana Hilliard, Claremont Mayor Dale Girard, and Laconia Mayor Andrew Hosmer blamed Sununu in their Jan. 3 letter for not doing enough.

“The state has always and will continue to be open to meaningful collaboration on this issue with your cities and other municipalities across the state,” Sununu wrote. “However, politically motivated letters merely muddy the water and make that mutual goal of collaboration more difficult to achieve.”

Sununu’s letter recounted the millions of dollars the state has already put into dealing with homelessness and housing.

• $100 million for InvestNH to make rapid investments in more affordable housing
• $20 million for families in crisis through this winter
• $4 million to build statewide healthcare access for individuals experiencing homelessness
• $4 million for emergency shelter bed capacity and expansion in addition to our typical$2.9 million annual general fund appropriation
• $2.25 million for the landlord incentive program
• $1 million for winter warming shelters

Meanwhile, Sununu has repeatedly noted Craig and the other mayors are sitting on a combined $73 million in unspent federal funding that could be used on homeless shelters and services.

Alderman Joseph Kelly Levasseur said if Manchester residents want someone to blame, they should look to the other communities around the state, many with Democratic mayors, who have the resources to shelter some of the state’s homeless but are content to see them shunted off to the Queen City.

“Manchester is the dumping ground for the rest of the state,” Lavasseur told NHJournal. “If every community took just two or four people into their towns, the relief they could provide — not only to the city of Manchester but also these homeless persons — would be incredibly powerful. This has to be a state-wide issue dealt with by all towns, counties, and cities in New Hampshire.

“Manchester cannot continue to do this on its own; and provide our property owners and taxpayers the level of comfort, safety, and quality of life they deserve.”