The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the state is failing to spend enough money on public education. But the justices also said the Legislature and governor have the sole authority to correct that and did not order any specific increase in spending on schools.
It’s the latest ruling in a long-running court battle over what the state spends to educate its students. NHPR’s Jackie Harris spoke with attorney John Tobin about what it means for schools today — and possibly into the future. Tobin’s been involved in legal arguments over school funding in New Hampshire for many years.
Read more: NH Supreme Court: State falls far short on school funding, but leaves fix to Legislature
Transcript
As you well know, school funding cases have a long history in New Hampshire courts, but yesterday's ruling is the first time the state Supreme Court has weighed in on funding and adequate education in several years. How does this ruling fit into that history?
Well, one of the things that's striking about it is at the very beginning, the decision really reaffirms and emphasizes the principles in the Claremont cases that we have a state constitution that says that the state has a duty to support public education and provide an education for our kids, and that that's fundamental to our democracy. We need an educated citizenry for our democracy to work, and it's a core part of our Constitution.
One of the key questions in this case was what education expenses the state should pay for. What did the court say and how does that differ from what's covered now?
Well, the court was really looking at a very detailed and thoughtful decision that Judge [David] Ruoff in the Superior Court made in 2023. And he did that work because the Supreme Court a couple of years ago asked him to go back and look carefully at what's required and what does it cost, and so he did his homework. And so there are a number of things that are pretty obvious. Teachers, principals, nurses, facilities, transportation, technology — those are the kinds of things that are required, and they're basic. You can't have a school without those things.
This opinion concludes that the state of New Hampshire does not give districts enough money to cover public education, but it does not give the Legislature or the governor an explicit deadline to increase school funding. And top state Republicans, including the governor, have rejected the ruling and said the court overstepped its authority. What gives you hope this ruling will change anything?
One of the things to point out is that we have the three branches of government and they have different roles, and this court is very respectful of and deferential to the legislative role. And the opinions have always said, going back to Claremont, it's the legislative role to set the amount that the state provides. But the court's role is really guardian of the Constitution. And when the Legislature doesn't act or acts in a way that's unconstitutional, the court has to set boundaries. And that's what they did.
And I think what they did in deciding not to have an immediate payment was to essentially call a ref time out and give the Legislature a grace period to do this without putting more pressure on them. And I think, again, that was deferential. But if you read the opinion, this is not a permanent timeout. It's not a permanent grace period. They are hoping and expecting that the Legislature will do its job.
I guess what I would say to Gov. [Kelly] Ayotte and some of the legislators is to take a step back, take a deep breath, read the decision carefully, and be mindful of your oath of office. You agreed and swore to an oath that said that you would uphold the Constitution, and that doesn't just mean the parts of the Constitution you like. The court's role is to define constitutional rights, and it's the role of the Legislature and executive branches to do all of their government functions within the guardrails of the Constitution.
This was a split decision. The three judges who carried the majority won't be on the court if the case comes back to the court. Could a future court overturn this ruling?
Well, I think that's unlikely because this court has again reaffirmed the principles of Claremont, and I think it would be shocking for new judges to come back after this recent reaffirmation of Claremont and say, "Oh, no, we're going to change the rules again." I think the principles of Claremont are strong and enduring. They're in the Constitution. How another court rules on some other issue is hard to predict, but I think the principles of Claremont are here to stay.
