Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Constitutional Law Remedies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawyers and the Municipal Association split over a bill to create statutory remedies for completed state‑constitutional violations
Summary
HB 614 would allow retrospective remedies (nominal damages, declaratory relief, equitable relief) when state constitutional rights have been violated; backers said it fills a legal gap and ensures Granite Staters access to relief in state court, while the Municipal Association warned of broad litigation consequences.
Representative Glen Cordelli introduced HB 614, a bill that would provide statutory remedies when a person’s state constitutional rights have been violated and the violation is complete or in the past. Sponsors framed the bill as filling a gap in New Hampshire law: current practice limits prospective injunctive relief and in many circumstances courts have not recognized retrospective remedies such as nominal damages or declaratory relief for completed state‑constitutional violations.
Ian Hewitt, an attorney who is litigating a local case that prompted the bill, testified in favor. He described how New Hampshire courts have repeatedly given prospective relief for threatened or ongoing constitutional violations but have not uniformly provided retrospective relief for completed violations. Hewitt said the bill mirrors federal practice (42 U.S.C. §1983) by ensuring a statutory cause of action and that courts have established mechanisms to manage related issues (immunity, frivolous suits) under existing case law.
Sarah Burke Cohen, representing the New Hampshire Municipal Association, opposed the bill. NHMA argued the measure is overly broad and would allow plaintiffs to layer constitutional claims on top of existing statutory or administrative remedies—creating runaway litigation and significantly higher municipal legal costs. NHMA reminded the committee of prior Supreme Court guidance that caution against converting ordinary administrative or property disputes into constitutional tort claims.
Hewitt said the bill is intended to protect state‑level rights and avoid forcing residents into federal court simply to obtain a remedy; he also noted courts possess standard tools to manage frivolous claims, immunity defenses and other procedural limits. The committee heard questions about how the bill would interact with existing tort and statutory remedies, the potential for duplicative claims, and whether amendments should narrow scope or add statutory limits.
No committee vote occurred. Members asked sponsors and opponents to supply proposed drafting options to address concerns about multiplicity of claims, sovereign immunity, and procedural limits.
