SB 552 · 2026 · Senate · Judiciary Committee

Sex-based rules for restrooms and sports

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

Defines 'biological sex' and provides that classifying individuals by biological sex in multi-person restrooms and locker rooms, athletic competitions, and involuntary commitment facilities does not constitute unlawful discrimination.AI-generated

Status

Vetoed; the override vote failed, so the veto stands · August 19, 2026

✓Introduced
✓Senate
✓House
✕Governor
Law

Governor's veto message

“I have continued to ask the Legislature to address this issue in a thoughtful, narrow way while protecting the privacy, safety, and rights of all Granite Staters. Unfortunately, there is minimal difference between this bill, the bill I vetoed earlier this year, the one I vetoed last year, and the one vetoed in 2024 by Governor Sununu. Trying the same thing again isn't going to get a different result. For this reason, I have vetoed Senate Bill 552.”

— Gov. Kelly Ayotte · Jun 19, 2026 · excerpt

Governor's press release

The House voted 161–142 on the override (Aug 19, 2026); the Senate voted 16–8 on the override (Aug 19, 2026) — short of the two-thirds required, so the veto was sustained. See the roll calls.

A passage from the Governor's veto message, quoted verbatim. The full message enters the record on veto day.

Analysis

This bill provides a definition for "biological sex" and provides that certain designations by biological sex do not constitute unlawful discrimination.

From the bill's official ANALYSIS section.

In the bill's words

Quoted verbatim from the bill as passed by both chambers.

“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.”

RSA 354-A:1, II

States the legislative finding that classifying people by biological sex serves a compelling state interest, the rationale on which the rest of the bill rests.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(a)

Lists bathrooms and locker rooms as a setting where classifying by biological sex would not be unlawful discrimination.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, I(b)

Extends the same treatment to athletic competition, a provision affecting eligibility rules in sports.AI-generated

““Biological sex” shall mean the male and female biological sexes. This section does not mean that any public or private entity is required by state statute to separate persons based upon biological sex.”

RSA 354-A:25-a, II

Defines the bill's central term and clarifies that the law permits, but does not mandate, separation by biological sex.AI-generated

Official record

Bill page — docket & status

gc.nh.gov · the authoritative source

Public testimony

382 signed in online · 108 wrote testimony

12% support88% oppose0% neutral

ForProtects privacy and safety of women and girls in intimate spaces

AgainstBill legalizes discrimination against a vulnerable minority

AI-generatedLeading arguments, summarized by the testimony tool.

Read the arguments

In their wordsVerbatim, exactly as submitted

“This bill is vitally important to allow the state to classify biological sexes in public areas for the safety and privacy of individuals.”

— Peter Curtis, Doversupports

“Support this common sense bill. Bathrooms are designated by gender /biological gender not those choosing to identify/pretend to be something you are not. Good Heavens!…”

— Susan Brown, Bedfordsupports

“I am a liberal but I support limiting biological men's access to women's spaces in order to keep women safe from harm. Women have fought hard to establish safe spaces for biological women only.…”

— Catherine Stanton, Lymesupports

“This cannot be regulated. Everyone vying for this bill is perverted.”

— Samantha Grenier, Milfordopposes

“Governor Ayotte already vetoed similar legislation twice. Public testimony overwhelmingly opposed similar legislation. Please stop continuing to waste time on this culture war issue, and move on to bills that improve the lives of all Granite Staters.”

— Dan Watkins, Derryopposes

“This bull is discriminatory against a minority group and I oppose it.”

— Angela Sylvia, Manchesteropposes

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 5, 2026SenateCommittee reportCommittee report: Ought to Pass3–2
Overall
60% yea
Mar 5, 2026SenateRoll callOught to PassAdopted16–8How they voted
Overall
67% yea
Party-line vote
Republicans
16–0100% yea
Democrats
0–80% yea
Apr 8, 2026HouseCommittee report· regular calendarCommittee report: Ought to Pass9–8
Overall
53% yea
May 14, 2026HouseVoice voteSpecial Order to after ED&A (Rep. Lynn)adopted
May 14, 2026HouseRoll callOught to PassAdopted179–159How they voted
Overall
53% yea
Party-line vote
Republicans
178–498% yea
Democrats
1–1551% yea
Jun 4, 2026SenateVoice voteEnrolledadopted
Aug 19, 2026HouseRoll callOverride the veto — shall the bill become law notwithstanding the objectionsFailed161–142How they voted
Overall
53% yea
Party-line vote
Republicans
161–597% yea
Democrats
0–1370% yea
Aug 19, 2026SenateRoll callOverride the veto — shall the bill become law notwithstanding the objectionsAdopted16–8How they voted
Overall
67% yea
Party-line vote
Republicans
16–0100% yea
Democrats
0–80% yea

Hearings and debates

Feb 11, 2026Public hearingSenate Judiciary4:54–2:05:262h 32s
Mar 5, 2026Floor debateSenate floor3:44:40–4:13:4529m 5s
Mar 25, 2026Public hearingHouse Judiciary1:39:00–2:45:031h 6m 3s
Apr 8, 2026Executive sessionHouse Judiciary1:11:10–1:14:243m 14s
May 14, 2026Floor debateHouse floor5:24:31–5:46:3021m 59s
Jun 4, 2026Floor debateSenate floorWatchnot located in the transcript — opens the full streamEnrolled Adopted — voice vote
Aug 19, 2026Floor debateSenate floor29:34–32:413m 7slocated in the stream transcriptNotwithstanding the Governor's Veto, Shall SB 552 Become Law — roll call 16-8; Without Objection the Senate will take up SB 552 at the present time
Aug 19, 2026Floor debateHouse floor5:05:34–5:10:334m 59slocated in the stream transcriptVeto Sustained — roll call 161-142

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

Legislative history

Jan 7, 2026SenIntroduced 01/07/2026 and Referred to Judiciary; SJ 1
Feb 11, 2026SenHearing: 02/11/2026, Room 103, SH, 01:00 pm; SC 5
Mar 5, 2026Sen: Ought to Pass, 03/05/2026, Vote 3-2; SC 8
Mar 5, 2026SenSpecial Order to the end of the calendar, Without Objection, MA; 03/05/2026; SJ 5
Mar 5, 2026SenOught to Pass: RC 16Y-8N, MA; OT3rdg; 03/05/2026; SJ 5
Mar 12, 2026HouseIntroduced (in recess of) 03/12/2026 and referred to Judiciary HJ 8 P. 114
Mar 25, 2026HousePublic Hearing: 03/25/2026 10:30 am GP 230
Apr 8, 2026HouseExecutive Session: 04/08/2026 10:30 am GP 230
Apr 8, 2026HouseMajority : Ought to Pass 04/08/2026 (Vote 9-8; RC) HC 19 P. 25
May 5, 2026HouseMinority : Inexpedient to Legislate
May 14, 2026HouseSpecial Order to after ED&A (Rep. Lynn): MA VV 05/14/2026 HJ 13 P. 44
May 14, 2026HouseOught to Pass: MA RC 179-159 05/14/2026 HJ 13 P. 87
Jun 4, 2026HouseEnrolled (in recess of) 06/04/2026 HJ 15
Jun 4, 2026SenEnrolled Adopted, VV, (In recess 06/04/2026); SJ 14
Jun 19, 2026SenVetoed by Governor 06/19/2026
Aug 19, 2026SenWithout Objection the Senate will take up SB 552 at the present time, 08/19/2026; SJ 15
Aug 19, 2026HouseVeto Sustained 08/19/2026: RC 161-142 Lacking Necessary Two-Thirds Vote HJ 16
Aug 19, 2026SenNotwithstanding the Governor's Veto, Shall SB 552 Become Law: RC 16Y-8N, Veto Overridden by necessary two-thirds vote; 08/19/2026; SJ 15

Coverage

Ayotte Again Vetoes 'Bathroom Bill' Despite Republican Pressure, Signs 54 BillsInDepthNH · Jun 19, 2026
Governor Ayotte vetoed SB 552, which provides a definition for 'biological sex' and states that certain designations by biological sex do not constitute unlawful discrimination.AI-generated
Gov. Kelly Ayotte vetoes transgender bathroom bill againUnion Leader · Jun 19, 2026
Ayotte vetoed SB 552, which would allow people to be classified based on their biological sex in bathrooms, locker rooms, sporting competitions and detention facilities.AI-generated
Governor Ayotte vetoes 'bathroom' billKeene Sentinel · Jun 19, 2026
Ayotte vetoed the Republican-backed SB 552, which would allow people to be classified based on their biological sex in bathrooms, locker rooms, sporting competitions and detention facilities.AI-generated
After Ayotte's vetoes, here's where the 'bathroom bills' standConcord Monitor · May 11, 2026
The article notes that SB 552 and HB 1442 are identical versions of bathroom legislation that Gov. Ayotte previously vetoed and that remained awaiting House action.AI-generated
SB 552 (2026)Citizens Count
Citizens Count describes SB 552 as adding an exception to state anti-discrimination laws to classify individuals based on biological sex in restrooms, locker rooms, sports and other settings, a measure vetoed by the governor.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.