The rationale behind New Hampshire’s new brewpub regulation is more headache-inducing than the beer.

On Friday, New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) signed House Bill 242 into law. The bill, sponsored by state Rep. John Hunt (R–Rindge), will take effect in August and limits brewpubs in the state to self-distributing their beer to only one additional restaurant or business outside their premises. The bill is a follow-up to H.B. 1380, also sponsored by Hunt in 2024, which limited the amount of beer or cider a brewpub could sell to 2,500 barrels a year and permitted licensed brewpub owners to obtain licenses to sell their product on their premises in bars and at off-premise locations like grocery stores, so long as they didn’t have a manufacturing license.

If the law sounds like it will keep brewpubs small, that’s because it’s intended to do so. “This is what we call a very inside baseball bill,” Hunt told the New Hampshire Bulletin. 

Hunt said that H.B. 242 was designed to preserve the state’s current regulatory system, describing New Hampshire as a “three-tier state,” where businesses operate as either beverage manufacturers, distributors, or retailers. By restricting brewpubs from becoming a one-stop shop that acts as a “bottler…distributor” and “retailer,” Hunt said the bill is intended to safeguard the “monopoly” held by beer distributors in the middle tier of this system.”Frankly, I think the relationship between the distributors and the licensees (retailers) is pretty sacred, and it works well, and there’s no reason to upset them.”

The bill was supported by the state’s restaurant and lodging trade group. “You have to understand, in order for one of these brewpubs to make enough beer to self distribute to more than one additional location, they would have to make an enormous amount of beer…and frankly, most of them didn’t think they could make enough beer to even distribute to another location,” Mike Somers, president and CEO of the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association, told the New Hampshire Bulletin. “Most of the folks in the industry that I’ve talked to didn’t really feel that the restriction was much of a restriction, because they could now own multiple brewpubs and restaurants.” 

Rather than having the freedom to ramp up production and distribution, Somers contends that brewpub owners would rather start new brands and businesses from scratch.

This wasn’t the only booze-related bill that passed the governor’s desk: Ayotte also signed H.B. 467 and let H.B. 81 become law without her signature. H.B. 467 allows municipalities to create designated “social districts” where people can legally consume alcohol outdoors. These areas must be clearly marked with signs indicating the permitted times and boundaries, and all alcohol must be purchased from businesses within the district. Separately, H.B. 81 permits restaurant patrons to bring their drinks with them to the restroom.

While both laws ease some restrictions on consumer alcohol use, they stop short of meaningfully reducing the state’s overall control of alcoholic beverages. And now, New Hampshire’s brewpubs will face more hurdles to scaling up the production and distribution of their beer. 

In keeping with that spirit, the state would be better served by promoting policies that encourage innovation, rather than anticompetitive laws like H.B. 242 that restrict consumer choice and unfairly penalize brewpubs for their market success.

The post New Hampshire’s New Booze Law Will Hamstring the State’s Brewpubs appeared first on Reason.com.

CONCORD, N.H. — Governor Kelly A. Ayotte vetoed legislation on Tuesday that would have rolled back anti-discrimination protections for transgender people in bathrooms, locker rooms, detention facilities, and sports.

In so doing, Ayotte followed in the footsteps of her predecessor, Chris Sununu, a fellow Republican and close ally, who had vetoed the same legislation last year.

While proponents said House Bill 148 would protect people’s privacy rights and physical safety, opponents said the measure would allow discrimination against transgender people.

Ayotte said she sees “legitimate privacy and safety concerns” on this topic, but believes HB 148 was too broad and impractical, and risked creating “an exclusionary environment” for some community members.

“While I believe that the legislature should address this serious issue,” she said, “it must be done in a thoughtful and narrow way that protects the privacy, safety, and rights of all New Hampshire citizens.”

The legislation would have allowed public and private organizations to bar transgender individuals from using certain facilities and participating in certain activities that align with their gender identity.

Unlike the bathroom bills that have passed in other states, such as Florida and Utah, the legislation in New Hampshire would have allowed for sex-based separation in certain settings, without requiring it.

Every state in New England has adopted legal protections on the basis of gender identity. Had this bill been signed into law, New Hampshire would have become the only state in the region to add exceptions for transgender people in certain circumstances, according to Movement Advancement Project.

The legislation would have curtailed protections that Sununu signed into law, when legislators added gender identity to New Hampshire’s existing nondiscrimination statute.

When he vetoed a bill like HB 148 last year, Sununu reiterated his prior statement that discrimination “is unacceptable and runs contrary to New Hampshire’s Live Free or Die Spirit.” He said the bill sought to solve problems that hadn’t cropped up in New Hampshire, and would invite “unnecessary discord.”

Republican Representative Jim Kofalt of Wilton, the prime sponsor of HB 148, disagreed with Sununu’s assessment and said school districts in New Hampshire have struggled to regulate bathroom usage under the current law.

“This is an important change that we need to make in our law so that we can respect everyone’s privacy and security,” he told senators in May.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire opposed the bill, which policy advocate Courtney Reed called “egregiously cruel legislation” that would permit discrimination.

“This discriminatory, detrimental, and regressive bill is an attempt to expel transgender Granite Staters from public life,” she said in a statement ahead of the bill’s passage.

Ayotte said in her veto message that she worried HB 148 would “spur a plethora of litigation against local communities and businesses.”

Ayotte said the provisions of HB 148 that pertain to athletics for women and girls are “weaker” than New Hampshire’s current law, which is being challenged in federal court.

Legal challenges to bathroom bans have had mixed results elsewhere. Some bans have been upheld, such as a March decision from an appeals court in Idaho, while some efforts to reinstate bans have been rejected.

Amanda Gokee can be reached at amanda.gokee@globe.com. Follow her @amanda_gokee. Steven Porter can be reached at steven.porter@globe.com. Follow him @reporterporter.

A Canadian citizen who has lived legally in New Hampshire for 43 years has been denied reentry into the United States, NBC10 Boston reports. 

Chris Landry, 46, was stopped Sunday at the border in Houlton, Maine, on his way back to Peterborough, New Hampshire from a family trip to Canada, the station reports. He told the NBC10 Boston that despite his green card and being a legal resident in New Hampshire since he was 3 years old, he was turned away because of past convictions in the Granite State. 

Landry told NBC10 Boston he faced charges of marijuana possession and driving with a suspended license in 2004 and 2007. He said he was given a suspended sentence, paid his fines, and has had no criminal record since. 

On Sunday, he said he could only get back into the United States, where he lives with his partner and five children, who are American citizens, if he sees an immigration judge. 

He told NBC10 Boston he goes to Canada at least once a year and has never before encountered an issue reentering the United States. 

Landry said he blames the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown for the uncertainty he is now facing.

“I was definitely all for ‘Make America Great Again,’ and having a strong, unified country, and a bright future for my five American children, but now I feel a little differently,” he told NBC10 Boston. “I’ve been torn from my family. My life has been disregarded completely.”

Dialynn Dwyer is a reporter and editor at Boston.com, covering breaking and local news across Boston and New England.