HB 148 · 2025 · House · Judiciary Committee

Sex-based rules for bathrooms and sports

permitting classification of individuals based on biological sex under certain circumstances.

Amends the state's Law Against Discrimination to allow classification of individuals based on biological sex in lavatory facilities and locker rooms, athletic competitions, and prisons or detention facilities without it constituting unlawful discrimination.AI-generated

Status

Vetoed; the override vote failed, so the veto stands · December 17, 2025

✓Introduced
✓House
✓Senate
✕Governor
Law

Governor's veto message

“House Bill 148 is overly broad and impractical to enforce, potentially creating an exclusionary environment for some of our citizens.”

— Gov. Kelly Ayotte · Jul 15, 2025 · excerpt

Governor's press release House Journal 19, p. 6

The House voted 188–165 on the override (Dec 17, 2025) — short of the two-thirds required, so the veto was sustained. See the roll call.

Analysis

This bill permits classification of individuals based on biological sex in lavatory facilities and locker rooms, sporting competitions, and detention facilities.

From the bill's official ANALYSIS section.

In the bill's words

Quoted verbatim from the bill as passed by both chambers.

“Notwithstanding RSA 354-A:2, XIV-e or any other provision of this chapter or any other law or regulation, it shall not constitute unlawful discrimination based on sexual or gender identity for any person or organization, public or private, to classify based on biological sex with respect to the following matters:”

RSA 354-A:25-a

The operative carve-out from the Law Against Discrimination, reaching both public and private organizations.AI-generated

“In the construction, maintenance, operation, and use of lavatory facilities or locker rooms designed for usage by multiple persons at the same time, even if such facilities have individual urinals, stalls, or similar apparatus.”

RSA 354-A:25-a, I

Bathrooms and locker rooms — written to cover facilities that already have private stalls.AI-generated

“In athletic or sporting events or competitions in a sport or similar activity in which physical strength, speed, or endurance is generally recognized to give an advantage to biological males.”

RSA 354-A:25-a, II

The sports provision, tied to a stated physical-advantage rationale rather than to a blanket rule.AI-generated

“there are certain limited circumstances in which classification of persons based on biological sex is proper because such classification serves the compelling state interests of protecting the privacy rights and physical safety of such persons and others. The legislature finds that permitting classification of persons based upon biological sex serves this compelling state interest in the 3 circumstances described in RSA 354-A:25-a.”

RSA 354-A:1, II

The findings the bill rests on: a compelling-interest claim written into the statute alongside an endorsement of the anti-discrimination commitment it limits.AI-generated

Official record

Bill page — docket & status

gc.nh.gov · the authoritative source

Public testimony

3,117 signed in online · 947 wrote testimony

7% support93% oppose0% neutral

ForProtects women's and girls' privacy and safety

AgainstBill codifies discrimination against transgender people

AI-generatedLeading arguments, summarized by the testimony tool.

Read the arguments

In their wordsVerbatim, exactly as submitted

“We strongly support the letter and spirit of this proposed Bill.”

— Peter and Robin Brigham, Goshen · Ourselvessupports

“I am in complete support of this bill! Sylvia Springer Goffstown, NH”

— Sylvia Springer, Goffstownsupports

“I heard State House testimony from a man calling himself "Jennifer" who stated he completely undresses in the women's locker room at the YMCA and no one has had an issue with it. I have a big issue with it and cancelled our Y membership. Our girls should have safe spaces.…”

— Wendy Sandford, Goffstownsupports

“It is astounding that New Hampshire families are being subjected to such an ill-conceived waste of legislation. The purpose of this bill is simple to understand: fearmongering Republicans in this state lead with hate first.…”

— Sean Stanley, Manchester · Humanityopposes

“I strongly oppose this bill as it doesn't take into consideration privacy rights and physical safety of this vulnerable population.”

— Lisa Gagalis, North Hamptonopposes

“This is an individuals personal business and not to be regulated by state or federal government. This goes against the individual freedoms that New Hampshire citizens profess.…”

— Charlene Steele, Madburyopposes

“I urge the house Judiciary to ensure that New Hampshire does not discriminate against its own citizens, but also understand the need in certain circumstances to provide legal safety in uncertain classification-required scenarios.”

— Naomi Connelly, Doverneutral

Verbatim excerpts of submitted testimony, quoted from the testimony tool.

Read the testimony · as of Aug 12, 2026

Votes

yeanay

Starting text: Bill as introduced

Mar 3, 2025HouseCommittee report· regular calendar: Ought to Pass10–8
Overall
56% yea
Mar 20, 2025HouseRoll callOught to PassAdopted201–166How they voted
Overall
55% yea
Party-line vote
Republicans
199–399% yea
Democrats
2–1631% yea
May 22, 2025SenateCommittee report: Ought to Pass3–1
Overall
75% yea
May 22, 2025SenateRoll callOught to PassAdopted16–8How they voted
Overall
67% yea
Party-line vote
Republicans
16–0100% yea
Democrats
0–80% yea
Jun 26, 2025SenateVoice voteEnrolledadopted
Dec 17, 2025HouseRoll callOverride the veto — shall the bill become law notwithstanding the objectionsFailed188–165How they voted
Overall
53% yea
Party-line vote
Republicans
187–597% yea
Democrats
1–1601% yea

Hearings and debates

Feb 19, 2025Public hearingHouse Judiciary2:00:18–2:16:2816m 10slocated in the stream transcript==CANCELLED== Public Hearing; Public Hearing
Mar 3, 2025Public hearingHouse Judiciary19:04–24:095m 5slocated in the stream transcriptMajority Committee Report: Ought to Pass — roll call; Executive Session
Mar 20, 2025Floor debateHouse floor5:18:00–5:46:4128m 41slocated in the stream transcriptOught to Pass — adopted, roll call 201-166
May 6, 2025Public hearingSenate Judiciary3:34:46–4:03:1428m 28slocated in the stream transcriptHearing
May 22, 2025Floor debateSenate floor3:30:05–3:42:1512m 10slocated in the stream transcriptCommittee Report: Ought to Pass; Ought to Pass — adopted, roll call 16-8
Jun 26, 2025Floor debateSenate floorWatchnot located in the transcript — opens the full streamEnrolled Adopted — voice vote
Dec 17, 2025Floor debateHouse floor44:07–51:507m 43slocated in the stream transcriptVeto Sustained — roll call 188-165

Timestamps locate where this bill is taken up in the chamber's YouTube stream.

Legislative history

Jan 8, 2025HouseIntroduced 01/08/2025 and referred to Judiciary HJ 2 P. 7
Feb 19, 2025House==CANCELLED== Public Hearing: 02/19/2025 03:15 pm LOB 206-208
Feb 19, 2025HousePublic Hearing: 02/19/2025 09:00 am LOB 206-208
Mar 3, 2025HouseExecutive Session: 03/03/2025 10:00 am LOB 206-208
Mar 3, 2025HouseMajority : Ought to Pass 03/03/2025 (Vote 10-8; RC)
Mar 7, 2025HouseMinority : Inexpedient to Legislate
Mar 20, 2025HouseOught to Pass: MA RC 201-166 03/20/2025 HJ 9 P. 59
Mar 20, 2025SenIntroduced 03/20/2025 and Referred to Judiciary; SJ 9
May 6, 2025SenHearing: 05/06/2025, Room 100, SH, 01:50 pm; SC 20
May 22, 2025Sen: Ought to Pass, 05/22/2025, Vote 3-1; SC 22
May 22, 2025SenOught to Pass: RC 16Y-8N, MA; OT3rdg; 05/22/2025; SJ 14
Jun 26, 2025HouseEnrolled (in recess of) 06/26/2025 HJ 18 P. 59
Jun 26, 2025SenEnrolled Adopted, VV, (In recess 06/26/2025); SJ 18
Jul 15, 2025HouseVetoed by Governor Ayotte 07/15/2025 HJ 19 P. 6
Dec 17, 2025HouseVeto Sustained 12/17/2025: RC 188-165 Lacking Necessary Two-Thirds Vote HJ 19

Coverage

Ayotte vetoes bathroom bill, defeating it for second time in two yearsConcord Monitor · Jul 16, 2025
Ayotte called HB 148 "overly broad and impractical to enforce" while acknowledging privacy concerns in locker rooms.AI-generated
A guide to veto day 2025: Ayotte vs. social conservativesNew Hampshire Bulletin · Dec 16, 2025
The override attempt on HB 148 in context — conservatives fell short of the two-thirds needed.AI-generated
After Ayotte's vetoes, here's where the 'bathroom bills' standConcord Monitor · May 11, 2026
What happened after HB 148: the same policy returned in 2026 and met the same veto.AI-generated

Background reading

Evergreen reading on the policy area — spanning perspectives — not coverage of this specific bill.

Which states have laws about transgender people's bathroom use?Explainer
PolitiFact — Nonpartisan fact-checking outlet's state-by-state rundown of laws restricting transgender access to bathrooms and other sex-segregated facilities.AI-generated
Transgender athlete laws by state: Legislation, science, moreNational context
ESPN — Overview of the state sports-eligibility laws sweeping the country, with the scientific and legal debates behind them.AI-generated
What They Are Saying: Protection of Women and Girls in Sports ActSupporters
Office of U.S. Senator Mike Lee — Compilation of arguments from sponsors and advocates making the fairness-and-privacy case for defining sports eligibility by biological sex.AI-generated
What's at Stake as the Supreme Court Takes Up Transgender Sports BansCritics
American Civil Liberties Union — Civil-liberties group's account of the Title IX and Equal Protection challenges to sports bans and their effect on transgender students.AI-generated
Americans have grown more supportive of restrictions for trans people in recent yearsPublic opinion
Pew Research Center — National survey data on shifting public attitudes toward transgender sports and bathroom policies.AI-generated
SB 268 (2025)NH context
Citizens Count — Nonpartisan New Hampshire civic guide's summary of the bill creating sex-based exceptions for facilities, sports, and treatment centers.AI-generated

Documents (PDF)

Bill text & amendments link direct to gc.nh.gov; committee reports stream from the state record.