Committee hears legal and public testimony on non-germane amendment to HB 50 on "divisive concepts" law

The House Education Committee opened a public hearing on a non-germane amendment (2025059h) to HB 50 that would revise the state's statute related to certain instructional concepts by adding a scienter requirement — requiring that a violation be "intentional or knowing." The amendment is framed by its sponsor as an effort to address vagueness identified by a federal district court ruling in litigation challenging the existing statute.

Representative Cordelli, the amendment sponsor, said the language is intended to include a mental-state element so that a person would have to "knowingly or intentionally" act in a way that violates the statute before facing licensing or other penalties. "The value of a scienter requirement is that it limits a law's scope to those who knowingly engage in a particular course of conduct," he told the committee.

The committee heard legal analysis from Sam Garland, senior assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice, who described the litigation history. Garland said the federal judge who enjoined the statute relied in part on three factors in finding unconstitutional vagueness: unclear prohibited conduct, the presence of penalties that can affect licensure, and the lack of a mens rea or scienter requirement. Garland said the amendment "directly addresses 1 of the concerns" the judge identified but that his office could not predict whether the amendment alone would end litigation, which is currently pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Several witnesses expressed concern that amending the statute would not cure all constitutional defects. Representative Murray, a co-sponsor of the repeal bill (HB 50), said the underlying law had been found unconstitutional and warned that amendments could invite further litigation. Shannon McGinley, executive director of Cornerstone Action, said the amendment would not be sufficient to restore the law without additional legal review; she offered to share her group's outside attorneys' views.

The committee also heard public testimony that ranged from legal counsel with the Department of Justice providing technical context to civil-liberties advocates who urged rejecting the non-germane amendment and the underlying law. The department's civil-litigation chief described the appeal process and said oral argument in the First Circuit was scheduled for April 8; the outcome there will inform whether and how the state proceeds.

No committee vote was recorded on the amendment during the hearing; the matter was discussed and witnesses were asked to provide additional materials to staff as the committee considers possible paths forward.