New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Patrick Donovan Refuses to Step Aside From School Funding Case

On Wednesday, May 6, 2026, the Concord Monitor reported that a controversy is brewing within the New Hampshire Supreme Court as justices face calls to recuse themselves from a pivotal school funding case. Justice Patrick Donovan, one of the justices under scrutiny, has declared his intention to remain on the case, despite prior legal work for the state that is now at the heart of the appeal.

The impartiality of Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, as well as Justices Daniel Will and Bryan Gould, has also been questioned, prompting requests for their recusal. The concerns stem from their past affiliations with the Attorney General’s office, where they represented the state in similar school funding lawsuits.

Justice Donovan, who served as an assistant attorney general in the 1990s, has asserted his ability to judge the case without bias. His decision comes even as the court prepares to review a case he previously argued for the state, Claremont II, decided in 1997, which the state now seeks to overturn.

Legal representatives for a coalition of taxpayers, who initiated the appeal, argue that the deep-rooted connections of these justices to prior state legal positions undermine the court’s impartiality. They claim that the situation presents “extraordinary circumstances” that could irrevocably damage the court’s reputation as an unbiased legal authority.

While Donovan has made his decision, the other justices have not yet issued their rulings.

The central issue before the Supreme Court is the constitutionality of the state’s school funding system. Taxpayers argue that the current funding levels and special education payments are inadequate. The court’s decision could potentially overturn established precedents and reshape school funding laws in New Hampshire.

A key point of contention is whether the State Constitution mandates a duty to fund education, a principle established in 1993.

The justices have already rejected a request to transfer the recusal decisions to a panel of lower court judges, maintaining that it is “standard practice” for judges to rule on their own recusal requests.