E-Verify requirements in New Hampshire: no mandate, but a state documentation rule and an E-Verify defense
On this page
As of October 2026, New Hampshire does not require E-Verify, and it has said no to the idea three times in two years. House Bill 1110 in 2024, and House Bill 69 and Senate Bill 177 in 2025, would each have required some or all employers to use E-Verify. Each was voted "inexpedient to legislate," New Hampshire's way of killing a bill.
New Hampshire is not silent on work authorization, though. Its Citizens Job Protection chapter, RSA 275-A, has required employers since 1976 to obtain documentation of each employee's eligibility to work, backed by a state civil penalty. And since 2012 it has given employers that use E-Verify a defense in one specific kind of lawsuit. Those two provisions, not a mandate, are what a New Hampshire recruiter should know.
Not legal advice. Checked as of October 2026 against the text of RSA chapter 275-A on the General Court's website and the dockets for HB 1110 (2024), HB 69 (2025) and SB 177 (2025). We read the dockets through a public mirror of the General Court's bill records. We did not check for a 2026 E-Verify bill in a full-text search of every 2026 bill. Confirm with counsel before relying on this.
What New Hampshire law does say
| Statute | What it does |
|---|---|
| RSA 275-A:4-a | No employer may employ anyone without obtaining documentation of eligibility to work in the United States, kept for the period federal law requires. Acceptable documentation is what federal law requires. |
| RSA 275-A:4-b | A person whose Social Security number was misused may sue the person who misused it with fraudulent intent, anyone who knowingly supplied false documentation, and an employer that knew the documentation was false. Damages are treble damages or $10,000, whichever is greater, plus attorney's fees and correction costs. An employer that received verification from the SSA, E-Verify or another reputable service is deemed to have used reasonable care and has an affirmative defense. |
| RSA 275-A:5 | Violating any provision of RSA 275-A carries a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for each day of noncompliance, imposed by the labor commissioner, with an appeal route. |
In practice, RSA 275-A:4-a is satisfied by a properly completed Form I-9, kept for the federal retention period of three years after hire or one year after employment ends, whichever is later; see I-9 retention rules. What the state statute adds is a state enforcer and a daily penalty. An I-9 file that would draw a federal paperwork fine can also be a state problem in New Hampshire.
The E-Verify defense, and its limits
RSA 275-A:4-b is narrow. It does not reward E-Verify use generally; it protects an employer in a civil suit by a person whose Social Security number someone else used to get a job. In that suit, the employer is liable only if it knew the documentation was false, and a verification from E-Verify or the Social Security Administration gives it an affirmative defense.
Two cautions. First, the defense depends on the employer actually receiving a verification. A case that ended in something other than "Employment Authorized" does not supply it; see E-Verify case results explained. Second, an employer cannot enroll just to run checks on new hires it is suspicious of. The E-Verify memorandum of understanding requires a case for every new hire at an enrolled site and forbids selective or pre-offer use, and that federal rule is the one that creates real exposure.
Three bills in two years
| Bill | What it would have required | What happened |
|---|---|---|
| HB 1110 (2024) | Employers with 25 or more employees to verify through E-Verify, by amending RSA 275-A:4-a, from January 1, 2025 | Labor committee recommended inexpedient to legislate, 20 to 0; House agreed by voice vote on March 21, 2024 |
| HB 69 (2025) | All employers to verify employment eligibility through E-Verify, again by amending RSA 275-A:4-a, from January 1, 2026 | Labor committee recommended inexpedient to legislate, 19 to 0; House agreed by voice vote on February 6, 2025 |
| SB 177 (2025) | Employers with more than 25 employees to verify new hires through E-Verify, with a Department of Labor complaint process, record retention rules and escalating civil penalties, from January 1, 2026 | Senate Commerce Committee recommended inexpedient to legislate, 5 to 0; Senate agreed on March 13, 2025 |
The enforcement model SB 177 would have used
SB 177 is the most detailed of the three, and the closest guide to what a future New Hampshire mandate might look like. It would have put enforcement with the state Department of Labor rather than tying it to business licenses, the approach Arizona and South Carolina use. The Department of Labor would have taken complaints, investigated them and held hearings. Employers would have had record-retention duties tied to their E-Verify cases, and civil penalties would have increased for repeat violations. The bill also would have allowed the labor commissioner, in certain cases, to notify federal immigration authorities and local law enforcement. It applied only to employers above the 25-employee line, leaving the smallest businesses out, and it would have reached only new hires, as the federal program requires.
For a New Hampshire employer the practical lesson is that a future law would probably be enforced by the same Department of Labor that already enforces RSA 275-A:4-a, so a clean I-9 file is preparation for either.
The committee votes were lopsided, which says more about the bills' prospects than any single floor vote. New Hampshire's Legislature reconvenes each January, so a new bill can be filed any year; none of these three can be revived as is.
Federal contracts in New Hampshire
A New Hampshire employer's E-Verify obligation, if it has one, almost always comes from a federal contract. FAR 52.222-54 is placed in federal contracts above $150,000 under FAR 22.1803, with exceptions for work only outside the United States, contracts under 120 days, and contracts only for commercially available off-the-shelf items. It flows to subcontracts for services or construction above $3,500 performed in the United States. Defense electronics subcontracts and construction or services at federal facilities are typical examples. A covered contractor enrolls within 30 days of award and verifies company-wide new hires and employees assigned to the contract.
Neighbors and cross-border hiring
Massachusetts, where many New Hampshire residents work, has no general E-Verify mandate. Its Executive Branch contractors certify that they verify workers' immigration status under federal requirements, without a named E-Verify requirement; see E-Verify requirements in Massachusetts. A New Hampshire staffing firm placing workers in Lowell or Boston therefore adds no state E-Verify duty there. For placements further afield, use E-Verify requirements by state.
Staffing agencies in New Hampshire
- The agency that employs the worker is the employer that must obtain and keep eligibility documentation under RSA 275-A:4-a, which in practice means its Form I-9 file.
- The RSA 275-A:4-b defense belongs to the employer that received the verification. An agency that enrolls in E-Verify gets it for its own employees; the client does not get it through the agency.
- A client's federal subcontract can flow the FAR clause to the agency. The agency then enrolls and verifies as employer of record.
- Licensing is a separate question; see staffing agency license requirements in New Hampshire.
A worked example
This is an invented example. A Manchester manufacturer with 60 employees completes Form I-9 for every hire but does not use E-Verify. In 2026 a former employee's Social Security number turns out to have been used by a different hire, and the number's owner sues under RSA 275-A:4-b. The manufacturer's defense is that it did not know the documents were false; it has no E-Verify verification to point to. After the case, it weighs enrolling. It concludes that the affirmative defense is worth having, accepts that every new hire at its plant will need a case, and enrolls, writing down that the choice is voluntary and that New Hampshire law does not require it.
A New Hampshire checklist
- Keep a complete Form I-9 file; it is how you meet RSA 275-A:4-a.
- Decide whether the RSA 275-A:4-b defense justifies voluntary E-Verify enrollment for your workforce.
- If you enroll, verify every new hire at the enrolled site, never before an accepted offer.
- Check federal contracts and subcontracts for FAR 52.222-54.
- Each January, check the new session's bills for another E-Verify proposal.
Questions people ask
Does New Hampshire require E-Verify?
No. As of October 2026 New Hampshire has no law requiring employers to use E-Verify. The three most recent bills to require it, HB 1110 in 2024 and HB 69 and SB 177 in 2025, were all found inexpedient to legislate, which in New Hampshire ends a bill.
What does New Hampshire RSA 275-A:4-a require?
It provides that no employer may employ any employee without obtaining documentation showing the employee's eligibility to work in the United States, and that the employer must keep that documentation for the period federal law requires. Acceptable documentation is the documentation federal law requires. The labor commissioner can impose a civil penalty of up to $2,500 per day of noncompliance with RSA 275-A.
How does E-Verify help a New Hampshire employer?
Under RSA 275-A:4-b, a person whose Social Security number was misused can sue an employer that knew the documentation was false, for treble damages or $10,000, whichever is greater, plus fees. An employer that received verification of eligibility from the Social Security Administration, E-Verify or another reputable verification service is deemed to have exercised reasonable care and has an affirmative defense.
Do New Hampshire employers placing workers in Massachusetts need E-Verify?
Not because of Massachusetts law. Massachusetts has no general E-Verify mandate; its Executive Branch contractors certify they verify workers' status under federal requirements without naming E-Verify. A federal contract with FAR clause 52.222-54 is the more likely source of an E-Verify requirement.