New Hampshire
How City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law — Equal Protection.
New Hampshire adheres to strict scrutiny in evaluating affirmative action programs, aligning with the principles articulated in Croson regarding the necessity of a compelling interest and narrow tailoring. The state emphasizes that any preferential treatment must come from clear evidence of discrimination.
Affirmative action programs implemented by the state or local governments must demonstrate a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to address specific instances of past discrimination.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that measures taken for affirmative action must be justified with strong evidentiary support showing a clear and historical need.
The court struck down an affirmative action program that lacked a detailed analysis of prior discrimination and its specific harms.
Affirmed the necessity of explicitly demonstrating the correlation between past discrimination and current affirmative action measures.
New Hampshire’s approach closely mirrors the federal standard established in Croson, requiring a strict scrutiny standard for affirmative action. However, New Hampshire places a heightened emphasis on state-specific history and the unique context of local governance when evaluating affirmative action.
Understanding the application of strict scrutiny in affirmative action cases is crucial for the New Hampshire bar exam, particularly in essays focused on equal protection and state constitutional law.