Governor Ayotte signed HB 2 into law on June 27, 2025. HB 2 included language prohibiting diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives and contractual language for all political subdivisions with specific provisions related to public schools. Specifically, the language in HB 2 amends RSA 21-I:112 to 116 to prohibit DEI but provides no enforcement entity relative to DEI initiatives in political subdivisions and provides only that the department of justice establish a process for all political subdivisions to review their existing contracts for the presence of DEI related provisions. Additionally, the language included in HB 2 amends RSA 186 and prohibits DEI in public schools. The revisions to RSA 186 indicate compliance, enforcement, and assessment of penalties would be overseen by the department of education.
On August 7, 2025, the National Education Association – New Hampshire, Oyster River Cooperative School District, Dover School District, Somersworth School District, Grantham School District, Dottie Morris, James T. McKim, Jr. and New Hampshire Outright (“plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire against the New Hampshire Attorney General, Commissioner of the Department of Education, Commissioner of Administrative Services and State Treasurer of New Hampshire (“defendants”). The plaintiffs’ claims include that the law is: 1) vague and overly broad and; therefore, unconstitutional; 2) conflicts with federal civil rights laws established to protect people with disabilities; 3) creates first amendment issues akin to government sponsored censorship; 4) establishes funding penalties for public schools based on a burden that includes both knowingly and unknowingly violating the law; and 5) invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. In their prayer for relief, the plaintiffs requested that the DEI provisions of HB 2 be declared unconstitutional, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees.
The plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction on August 11, 2025. The defendants objected to the motion and argued that the plaintiffs had not established a likelihood of both standing and success on the merits to warrant an injunction to be issued. The court rendered its order on September 4, 2025, which issued a Temporary Restraining Order that restrained the defendants from taking any action relative to the DEI provisions of HB 2 until the court had an opportunity to rule on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On October 2, 2025, the court granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction with a finding that the plaintiffs met all aspects of the four-factor test from the case Arborjet, Inc. v. Rainbow Treecare Sci. Advancements, Inc., 794 F.3d 168, 171 (1st Cir. 2015). The Preliminary Injunction enjoins the defendants from enforcing or implementing the provisions of HB 2 (RSA 21-I:112 through RSA 21-I:116 and RSA 186:71 through RSA 186:77), and their reporting and certification requirements. The injunction takes effect immediately and remains in effect pending further orders from the court.
READ MORE IN COURT DECISION ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION!
Practice Pointer: Because of the injunction, municipalities do not need to take any action relative to compliance with the new provisions of RSA 21-I related to the prohibition of DEI initiatives and contract language. However, please remember to check back here for updates once the court issues its final decision on the case.