51品茶

WASHINGTON 鈥� The 51品茶 has filed a public comment in opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services鈥� (HHS) unlawful, harmful, and sweeping directive seeking to exclude immigrant communities from participating in vital community health and education services that benefit everyone. Last month, HHS issued a directive declaring that 13 programs will no longer be open to all and will instead for the first time be considered programs restricted under a law enacted nearly three decades ago, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). These programs include community health centers, mental health and substance use treatment programs, Head Start, the Title X Family Planning Program, and many others. The directive conflicts with PRWORA and upends longstanding guidance respected by four prior administrations. 鈥淭his arbitrary and harmful directive exemplifies this administration鈥檚 tunnel vision, which prioritizes its anti-immigrant crusade, no matter the harms,鈥� said Ming-Qi Chu, deputy director of the 51品茶 Women鈥檚 Rights Project. 鈥淚f HHS does not abandon this cruel and unlawful directive, hundreds of thousands of children will have their early childhood education disrupted, millions will lose access to life-saving health care like family planning services, cancer screenings, and addiction treatment, and many people with disabilities, including U.S. citizens, could have their care delayed due to bureaucratic immigration status checks. It serves no one鈥檚 interest to deny people these essential services, and HHS must withdraw this incredibly misguided directive.鈥� The 51品茶鈥檚 comment highlights that the directive is unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious, fails to meaningfully consider the impacts of the action, and will harm communities across the country 鈥� from children in schools, to people with disabilities, to low-income families denied essential health care, to people recovering from substance use disorder, to survivors of gender-based violence. The comment also notes that the directive will cause a chilling effect that harms immigrant communities that remain eligible, including for mixed status families and others who may be fearful or confused about whether seeking health care might expose them to immigration enforcement or retaliation. 鈥淭he Directive has triggered chaos and uncertainty both for administering agencies and the individuals, families, and communities who rely on the services at stake. [鈥�] It will deprive children of access to crucial early educational programming and undermine access to essential and life-saving health care for children and their families. It will also disproportionately burden mixed-status families, people with disabilities, and survivors of gender-based violence,鈥� the comment reads. The comment is available here: /documents/aclu-comment-in-opposition-to-hhs-directive-on-prwora

CONCORD, N.H. 鈥� A diverse group of educators and advocacy groups filed a federal lawsuit today challenging a new anti-equity, anti-inclusion, and anti-diversity law in New Hampshire, which became effective on July 1, 2025, after being signed into law by Governor Ayotte in late June. The law, contained within House Bill 2鈥檚 budget provisions, seeks to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion programs pertaining to race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability in New Hampshire schools (including both K-12 public schools as well as both public and private colleges and universities) and public entities like police departments and libraries. According to the lawsuit, this law radically contradicts federal civil rights laws that protect the rights of students with disabilities, violates the First Amendment rights of educators and students, and is vague and ambiguous under the United States and New Hampshire Constitutions. Megan Tuttle, NEA-New Hampshire president, stated, 鈥淎ll Granite State children deserve a high-quality education, safe and welcoming public schools, and the support they need to thrive. We know diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and initiatives are not only legally required in certain contexts but also create a sense of belonging where all students can feel comfortable sharing their ideas and stories. Vague and confusing laws that have the effect of censoring or limiting educators鈥� abilities to teach and accommodate students who may have special education needs can undermine the high-quality education that students deserve. New Hampshire educators are standing together against HB 2鈥檚 unconstitutional attack on those programs and standing up to politicians鈥� overreach into our classrooms. Our profession should be guided by what鈥檚 best for our students, not the threat of funding restrictions and punishment. We will never stop working to make sure every child feels safe, seen, and is prepared for the future.鈥� The lawsuit was brought by the state鈥檚 largest educator union, National Education Association 鈥� New Hampshire (NEA-NH), four school districts (Oyster River Cooperative School District, the Dover School District, the Somersworth School District, and the Grantham School District), trainer and consultant for diversity, equity, and inclusion James M. McKim, Jr., diversity, equity, and inclusion administrator and psychology professor Dottie Morris, and New Hampshire Outright, a nonprofit that provides training in public schools and entities on creating environments of inclusion and belonging for LGBTQ+ students. They are represented by lawyers from a broad coalition of organizations and law firms, including the 51品茶 of New Hampshire, the national 51品茶鈥檚 Disability Rights Program and Racial Justice Program, National Education Association-New Hampshire (NEA-NH), GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law), and Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon. Devon Chaffee, executive director of the 51品茶 of New Hampshire, said, 鈥淭his new law threatens to revoke critical public funding from Granite State schools using vague criteria unless they cease programming and policies aimed at fostering equitable and inclusive environments for all 鈥� and that鈥檚 unconstitutional. Just like with our other two lawsuits, we will continue to fight these unwarranted and unconstitutional attacks on diversity and inclusion efforts and our right to learn.鈥� The law does not just seek to prohibit diversity, equity, and inclusion in public entities and public schools, but it also seeks to strip away millions of dollars in critical state (and possibly federal) public funding if K-12 public school districts guess wrong as to how the New Hampshire Department of Education interprets the vague law鈥檚 provisions. According to one estimate, state aid to school districts could amount to more than $1 billion annually. John Shea, the superintendent of the Somersworth School District, said, 鈥淟ooking at HB2鈥檚 attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion, I鈥檓 worried that our legislature and our politicians may have lost sight of what these three words actually represent -- and just how important they are to our public education system. 鈥楧iversity鈥� simply is who we are here in Somersworth. It鈥檚 not a program, initiative or ideology. It cannot be legislated away. And equity -- or more particularly 鈥榚quitable opportunity鈥� -- is fundamental to the very idea of universal public education. As is 鈥榠nclusiveness,鈥� one of our community鈥檚 most cherished values. We strive for a welcoming environment for all, one that is strengthened by diverse perspectives. The State鈥檚 attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion are an attack on all of this. Special education, ESOL programs (English for Speakers of Other Languages), and the free and reduced meals program included -- among many other examples. We have no choice but to fight the anti-DEI elements of HB2.鈥� Zoe Brennan-Krohn, director of the 51品茶 Disability Rights Program, said, 鈥淣ew Hampshire's anti-DEI law is an expansive assault on the rights and freedoms of students and educators across the state. Among those potentially swept up in this vague law are students with disabilities, many of whom rely on accessibility and integration programs to succeed at school. Federal disability rights laws require public schools to identify disabled students to increase their achievement; state law cannot prohibit what federal law mandates.鈥� The law is already arbitrarily and selectively being enforced by the state Department of Education, which is aggressively applying it to private (including religious) colleges and universities that receive student scholarship funds through state grant aid programs (like UNIQUE Program state grants and the Governor鈥檚 Scholarship), but apparently not private K-12 schools (including religious schools) that receive public funds through Education Freedom Accounts. The law also applies to private colleges and universities (for example, Dartmouth College, Southern New Hampshire University, and Saint Anselm College) that receive any form of state funding, including those that receive state scholarship grants that help New Hampshire residents attend these colleges. For public and private colleges and universities in New Hampshire, the stakes for Granite Staters are severe: the amount at stake includes over $22 million in annual UNIQUE Program state grants and over $2 million in annual Governor鈥檚 scholarship program state grants, which are both distributed based on merit and need to New Hampshire residents who attend private or public New Hampshire colleges or universities. 鈥淭he lack of clarity about the expectations for how to comply with HB2鈥檚 anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion provisions, coupled with the severe and potentially devastating consequences a perceived violation may bring, have educators in a dilemma. As a result of this law, I am aware of several educators who will err on the side of caution out of concern and fear of engaging in some activity that might be perceived as diversity, equity, and inclusion related. The concern and fear of violating HB2鈥檚 directive will stifle educators鈥� abilities to adequately serve all of their students, to create school environments that support students from diverse lived experiences, and to ethically engage in their vocation,鈥� said Dottie Morris, a college administrator focusing on belonging and psychology professor, who is a plaintiff in this case. She is bringing suit only in her individual capacity. Also at stake are the millions of dollars the State provides for operating costs. All of this scholarship money and operational funding could be ripped away if public and private colleges and universities guess wrong as to how to comply with the law or with the education department鈥檚 interpretation of it. The lawsuit also raises concerns about how this law could impact school districts鈥� federally-mandated collection of demographic data, including racial and ethnic groups, in New Hampshire. James T. McKim, Jr., a plaintiff in the case and who works regularly with state and local government bodies to improve operations, including through diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, said, 鈥淚 am joining this suit because I believe the diversity, equity, and inclusion provision in HB2 goes against our Live Free or Die nature. It is unconstitutional. And it is harmful not only to me personally and to those in the protected classes mentioned in the law, but also to White people in our state and beyond. The work of helping organizations live into diversity, equity, and inclusion helps everyone.鈥� As the law was still making its way through the legislative process, disability rights advocates expressed clear concerns that essential services, programs, and trainings aimed at helping the lives of people with disabilities could be dismantled by the law. The legislature failed to address these concerns in the final bill language that was ultimately signed into law. Jennifer Eber, litigation director for the Disability Rights Center - New Hampshire, who is not part of this lawsuit but opposed the law, said, 鈥淔ederal laws require school districts to provide specialized instruction and related services to qualifying students with disabilities. These federal laws protect the fundamental right of students with disabilities to access a free appropriate public education. Disability Rights Center -New Hampshire opposes HB2's effort to undermine these federal laws and fully supports the request that the Court find HB2 both unconstitutional and preempted.鈥� The law also impacts LGBTQ+ students in New Hampshire and could be viewed as potentially requiring the removal of certain programming, for example, policies establishing non-discrimination protections for transgender students or making menstrual hygiene products available in gender neutral bathrooms. Heidi Carrington Heath, executive director of New Hampshire Outright, a plaintiff in the case, said, 鈥淣.H. Outright has been leading the way in caring for LGBTQ+ youth and their families for over 30 years. That includes a well-respected, evidence-based training program that many schools and communities across the Granite State have benefitted from. We know that creating healthier and stronger environments for LGBTQ+ youth does so for everyone. HB2 is an attempt to silence the voices of vulnerable Granite Staters and puts them at risk in a time when they need stronger supports than ever. We believe that it is critical to challenge this unjust law that is already causing harm to our organization, and communities.鈥� Hannah Hussey, staff attorney at GLAD Law, said, 鈥淭his law is yet another unconstitutional attempt by elected officials seeking to control and censor valued and trusted educational programs in New Hampshire simply because they don鈥檛 like them. Imposing vague bans on programs related to race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability in our public schools and public and private colleges and universities will chill vital programs like special education services in our public schools, initiatives to increase the representation of girls in STEM, and other opportunities and resources to ensure equal opportunity for LGBTQ students, students of color, and students with disabilities. Such programs not only provide vital support for marginalized students, they contribute to an enriching environment for all students to get a well-rounded education, develop critical thinking skills, and learn to appreciate human differences.鈥� The court documents also outline how the law could forbid education programs designed to increase the representation of girls and women in STEM classes, the use of tuition waivers or campus recruitment efforts for older learners 50 and up, or opportunities for religious students through spiritual activities. This lawsuit follows several others filed in New Hampshire challenging anti-equity practices in education, including a 2021 lawsuit against a classroom censorship law that was struck down in federal court in May 2024, and one lawsuit filed on March 5, 2025 in New Hampshire by the 51品茶 of New Hampshire, national 51品茶, NEA, and NEA-NH against the U.S. Department of Education. These practices were halted by the court in April 2024. Dr. Christine Boston, superintendent of Dover Public Schools, said, 鈥淭he Dover School District provides relevant and engaging learning experiences and curricula to each student, which could violate HB2鈥檚 anti-DEI provisions where such individualized instruction is for the purpose of 鈥榓chieving demographic outcomes鈥� and classifies students based on the groups listed in RSA 354-A:1. The District celebrates the diversity of our student body, pursues equity to provide an individualized education, and creates inclusive learning environments. This commitment is required by the City of Dover school board and the State of New Hampshire. According to the Educational Equity Policy ACB of the Dover School District: 鈥楾he ultimate goal of the Dover School District鈥檚 educational system is to assure that each and every student, regardless of background, has access to relevant and engaging learning experiences and curricula that they will need in order to thrive today and into the future. This foundation will allow our students to become dynamic global citizens as they adapt to a rapidly changing world.鈥� HB2鈥檚 vague ban on, for example, 'critical race theory鈥� and 鈥榓ny program, policy, training, or initiative that classifies individuals based on a characteristic identified under RSA 354-A:1鈥欌�攏amely, age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion or national origin鈥斺�檉or the purpose of achieving demographic outcomes, rather than treating individuals equally under the law鈥� makes me question whether the N.H. Department of Education and others could view the District鈥檚 efforts to create relevant and engaging learning environments with well-rounded teachers and staff as violating HB2, thus jeopardizing much needed state and federal funding.鈥� Dr. Robert Shaps, the superintendent of the Oyster River Cooperative School District (ORCSD), said, 鈥淗B 2, as written, directly contradicts our legal responsibility to meet our obligations under a wide range of preexisting laws that require school districts to improve learning outcomes for demographic groups. It contains broad and ambiguous declarations coupled with unclearly defined prohibited practices and no guidance. These determinations are subjective and unreviewable, and conflict with our legal and ethical responsibilities to our students. The ability to provide and apply resources and services that ensure all students succeed academically is crucial to their success. In effect, the New Hampshire State Government is using financial force to impose an unclear directive regarding educational learning opportunities, despite its constitutional responsibility to provide adequate school funding without conditions. This unprecedented ability gives them the ability to immediately halt all sources of public funding without warning if a school or district, knowingly or unknowingly, fails to abide by any section of the anti-DEI provisions. We cannot stand by as the state attempts to bypass its own legal responsibilities while failing to provide due process to respond to violations and offering no chance of appeal. We hope this legal action will defend our right to deliver a high-quality public school education and support a democratic, informed, and engaged community as we work together to protect our children鈥檚 future.鈥� Christine Downing, the superintendent of the Grantham School District, said, 鈥淭he Grantham School District is taking a proactive stance to protect its students and educational programs by challenging the diversity, equity, and inclusion prohibition language of HB2. The District is committed to providing a high-quality education that prepares students for a diverse, global society, grounded in principles of inclusion and equity. Due to a severe lack of clarity regarding what constitutes 鈥楧EI-related programs, initiatives, policies, and training,鈥� the District believes it's essential to seek legal action. Without clear guidance from the Department of Education, the District cannot risk the possibility of arbitrary and unilateral actions by the Commissioner that could halt all sources of public funding. Joining this legal action is a necessary step to ensure the District can continue to provide the education our community expects and our students deserve.鈥� The complaint is available here: /cases/national-education-association-new-hampshire-v-formella?document=Complaint

From restrictive legislation to inaccessible polling places, barriers persist that undermine the rights of voters with disabilities.