On Monday, March 16, 2026, InDepthNH.org reported that plaintiffs in the Rand education funding lawsuit are seeking the recusal of four of the five New Hampshire Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald. The plaintiffs’ motion aims to prevent these justices from hearing the state’s appeal, which seeks to overturn the original Claremont education funding decisions established three decades ago.
The legal challenge arises from a prior ruling in the Rand case by Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff, who determined that New Hampshire had failed to adequately fund education and special education services. Judge Ruoff found the state’s reliance on local property taxes to be unconstitutional due to wide variations in rates, arguing that state taxes must be proportional and reasonable under the state’s constitution.
In addition to MacDonald, the plaintiffs are seeking the recusal of Associate Justices Bryan Gould, Patrick Donovan, and Daniel Will. Associate Justice Melissa B. Countway was not included in the recusal request. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that three of the four justices have been directly involved in the original Claremont decisions or subsequent education funding rulings based on those precedents. They contend that these justices should not participate in the appeal.
The plaintiffs have also challenged the judicial rule that allows justices to determine their own impartiality. Attorneys John Tobin, Andru Volinsky, and Natalie Laflamme argue that this case presents extraordinary circumstances that threaten lasting damage to the Court’s reputation as an impartial arbiter of law. They assert that the current rule violates the plaintiffs’ state and federal constitutional due process rights to fair and impartial justices.
The plaintiffs further argue that the foundations of the Claremont decisions have been repeatedly litigated, most recently in the appeal of the ConVal ruling. They claim that the state never challenged these tenets until after Justices Gould and Will were appointed by Governor Kelly Ayotte. The plaintiffs cite an article suggesting that the current court makeup could overturn the Claremont decisions.
The Plaintiffs also raise concerns about the justices’ prior involvement in similar cases. They argue that Justices MacDonald and Will were involved in the state’s defense in the ConVal case, which addressed similar issues regarding adequate education funding. While MacDonald recused himself from hearing the ConVal appeal as Chief Justice, the plaintiffs argue that both he and Will should recuse themselves from the Rand appeal due to the similarity of the contentions.
The plaintiffs also point out that Donovan represented the state in Claremont II litigation at trial and in multiple appeals and will now be asked to overturn that decision. They emphasize the importance of public perception, arguing that the average person would not believe that the State’s former lawyer can rule impartially on the precise constitutional questions that he litigated and lost on the State’s behalf.
The attorneys question whether the impartiality of a justice can be reasonably assured when his political supporters have openly stated he is a ‘torpedo’ to Claremont; he represented and was later nominated to the Court by a governor who has publicly disagreed with Claremont’s progeny; he held a leadership position in a political party that endorsed the overturning of Claremont; and an executive councilor voted for his nomination to the Court shortly after publicly stating that he would only vote for nominees who would overturn Claremont.
The state’s appeal argues that how the state funds and determines the cost of an adequate education is a political question, not a judicial determination. Lawmakers are also considering bills, House Bill 1815 and Senate Bill 659, that would rewrite core sections of the school funding and adequacy statutes.
Source: InDepthNH.org
