Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Immunity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel hears sharp debate over bills that would limit judicial immunity
Summary
Multiple bills (HB 15‑01, HB 15‑09 and related measures) prompted hours of testimony: proponents described systemic failures and called for new accountability; the judicial branch warned of unintended consequences, including chilling bail decisions and disrupting judicial independence.
CONCORD — The Judiciary Committee took testimony on a set of related bills aimed at limiting judicial immunity and creating new civil remedies for certain judicial acts.
Representative Susan DeRoy and other sponsors framed HB 15‑01 as a measured response to widespread complaints about family‑court handling, bail decisions and other discretionary acts. "Limiting immunity is not an attack on the courts," DeRoy said; "it is necessary to restore accountability, rebuild public trust and ensure justice serves all citizens." Several public witnesses gave personal testimony alleging improper decisions in family and bail cases and urged a legal path for redress.
Opponents, including Lauren Warner for the judicial branch and law‑practice groups, argued the bills risked perverse incentives. Warner warned that subjecting bail decisions to potential civil liability could lead judges to decline to sit bail hearings or to deny bail out of fear of later lawsuits, a result that could conflict with RSA 597 and the judicial code of conduct.
The committee received conflicting accounts about the scale of the problem and appropriate remedies. Supporters urged exceptions modeled on 'qualified immunity' for egregious corrupt acts; opponents urged improving existing disciplinary channels, citing the Judicial Conduct Committee and criminal statutes for intentional misconduct.
After testimony the committee later moved to ITL (inexpedient to legislate) on at least one of the bills (recorded roll calls appear in the transcript), and scheduled further work for related measures. Several lawmakers asked for interim study and amendments to refine statutory language and address unintended incentives.
