Condemning the judicial doctrine of "disparate impact".
Summary
House Resolution 6 is a nonbinding resolution that condemns the judicial doctrine of “disparate impact.” The resolution argues that disparate impact relies on an improper form of analysis to infer causation from statistical outcomes and claims that the doctrine has been used to support critical legal theory and expansive government regulation. It calls for the doctrine to be overturned as a way to restrain government, protect liberty, and preserve federalism and state powers.
The resolution does not amend any statutes or create new legal penalties; instead, it expresses the House’s position and directs that copies be sent to the President, New Hampshire’s congressional delegation, and the governor. Its practical effect is therefore political and symbolic rather than regulatory, but it signals opposition to a legal theory that can affect civil rights, housing, employment, education, lending, and other areas where disparate-impact claims are used.
Impact
Because HR 6 is a resolution rather than a bill, it does not directly change New Hampshire law, alter state agency authority, or amend any statutory provisions. Its impact is limited to formally stating the House’s disapproval of the disparate-impact doctrine and communicating that position to state and federal officials. The resolution’s broader significance is its potential to influence future legislative or policy debates involving anti-discrimination enforcement, civil rights litigation, and the use of statistical evidence in legal claims.
Sentiment
The available text presents a strongly negative sentiment toward disparate impact, describing it as unscientific, illegitimate, and inconsistent with constitutional principles. The sponsors frame the resolution as a defense of liberty, federalism, and limited government. No committee discussion or recorded votes were provided, so there is no evidence in the supplied materials of organized support or opposition beyond the resolution’s own language.
Contention
The central point of contention is the doctrine of disparate impact itself. Supporters of the resolution argue that it improperly assigns legal responsibility based on statistical disparities and can expand government power beyond constitutional limits. Opponents of the resolution would likely view disparate-impact analysis as an important civil-rights tool for identifying discrimination that may not be obvious from intent alone. Because no hearing transcript or vote record is included, the specific positions of legislators or outside stakeholders are not documented here.