The New Hampshire Attorney General has asked the state Supreme Court to set aside, in whole or in part, the landmark Claremont rulings that have underpinned the state’s school funding system for decades. In a 125‑page brief filed on Friday, the state argues those decisions are legally erroneous and have produced an impractical framework for financing education.
What the state is asking
The brief appeals a lower court judgement known as the Rand decision, which found that the state had failed to meet its constitutional duty to provide an adequate education and to adequately fund special education services, and concluded the funding system remained unconstitutional. The attorney general’s filing contends the Claremont rulings, which established the state’s obligation and criticised reliance on disparate local property taxes, should be overturned because they are incompatible with the constitution’s text, structure and historical understanding.
As an alternative to full reversal, the state urges the Supreme Court to change the way the state’s contribution is assessed by counting together the resources supplied by both state and local governments. The brief also argues that decisions of this kind risk breaching the separation of powers and that the question of constitutional funding is a “non‑justiciable political question”, which would undermine the standing of plaintiffs to pursue such claims.
". . . a local education property tax authorised by a municipal entity is not converted into a state tax simply because that municipal entity chooses to spend such revenue to cover an adequate education cost; and that the State is not required to fund the full measure of special education costs incurred by school districts," Attorney General John Formella writes.
Background and legal foundations
The Claremont decisions have formed the foundation of New Hampshire’s education system since they were handed down roughly three decades ago. Collectively they established two core principles relied upon by later courts and litigants:
- The state has a constitutional duty to provide an adequate education for children; and
- The funding system, based on widely varying local property taxes, was unconstitutional.
The Rand decision built on that line of cases by determining the state had not fulfilled its obligation — including in relation to special education provision — and that the overall funding system remained defective.
Legal arguments and consequences
In asking the Supreme Court to overturn Claremont I and II, the attorney general frames the rulings as jurisprudential errors that have led to an impracticable and unworkable state of affairs in education finance law. The brief asserts that the earlier decisions were "poorly reasoned" and inconsistent with constitutional meaning, and it warns of potential "judicial chaos" if the precedents remain unchallenged.
If the Supreme Court declines to overrule the precedents, the state proposes that the court should at least adopt a method that aggregates state and local contributions when assessing whether the constitutional duty has been met. That would effectively allow local property tax revenues used for education to be counted toward the state’s constitutional obligation to fund education.
Central to the state’s position is the claim that the dispute over education funding should be addressed through political rather than judicial channels — a point that, if accepted by the high court, would narrow the scope for future litigation on funding adequacy and special education costs.
Implications for pupils, districts and the courts
The outcome of this appeal could reshape how schools are financed in New Hampshire and limit or expand judicial oversight of funding decisions. A ruling in the state’s favour could validate a greater role for local taxation in meeting the constitutional standard and reduce the judiciary’s capacity to mandate funding remedies. Conversely, if the Supreme Court upholds Claremont and Rand, the state may be required to increase its share of funding for both general and special education, with potential consequences for the state budget and local taxation.
| Decision | Core finding (as described in briefs) |
|---|---|
| Claremont I | State has a constitutional duty to provide an adequate education |
| Claremont II | Funding system based on variable local property taxes was unconstitutional |
| Rand decision (lower court) | State failed to meet obligation to provide adequate and special education; funding system remains unconstitutional |
The brief raises fundamental questions about the balance between judicial remedies and democratic decision‑making in education finance. Whatever the court decides, schools, children with special educational needs and taxpayers will feel the practical effects — whether through altered state funding responsibilities, changes to local tax burdens, or limits on future legal challenges.
