New Hampshire Supreme Court
| New Hampshire Supreme Court |
|---|
|
| Court Information |
| Justices: 5 |
| Founded: 1876 |
| Location: Concord, New Hampshire |
| Salary |
| Associates: $197,945[1] |
| Judicial Selection |
| Method: Direct gubernatorial appointment |
| Term: Until retirement or the age of 70 |
| Active justices |
| James Bassett, Melissa Beth Countway, Patrick E. Donovan, Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, Gordon MacDonald |
Founded in 1876, the New Hampshire Supreme Court is the state's court of last resort and has five judgeships. The current chief of the court is Gordon MacDonald.
As of August 2021, three judges were appointed by a Republican governor and two judges were appointed by a Democratic governor.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court meets in the Supreme Court Building in Concord, New Hampshire.[2] The court's general term begins in January, and the court holds regular sessions during the year.[3]
In New Hampshire, state supreme court justices are selected through direct gubernatorial appointment. Justices are appointed directly by the governor without the use of a nominating commission.[4] There are five states that use this selection method. To read more about the gubernatorial appointment of judges, click here.
Jurisdiction
The New Hampshire Supreme Court hears appeals from state trial courts and administrative agencies. The court may issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus, and other writs.[5]
Most appeals filed in a timely manner require mandatory review on merit by the supreme court. The court may decide whether to hear oral arguments or decide the case on written briefs. The court may correct errors in trial court proceedings.[6] In some cases, the supreme court may use its discretion in deciding whether or not to accept an appeal for review. Examples of discretionary appeals include administrative appeals and petitions for original jurisdiction.[7]
The court may interpret case law, statutes, and the state and federal constitutions. The supreme court is also responsible for administration of the courts and admission of attorneys into the bar. Since 1977 the supreme court has overseen the disciplinary process of judges through the judicial conduct committee.[8][9]
The court may also issue advisory opinions at the request of the legislature or the governor and executive council. Opinions may be issued for actions that are being considered and usually involve questions about constitutional law.[10]
The following text from Section 490:4 of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes covers the jurisdiction of the court:[11]
| “ | The supreme court shall have general superintendence of all courts of inferior jurisdiction to prevent and correct errors and abuses, including the authority to approve rules of court and prescribe and administer canons of ethics with respect to such courts, shall have exclusive authority to issue writs of error, and may issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus, and all other writs and processes to other courts, to corporations and to individuals, and shall do and perform all the duties reasonably requisite and necessary to be done by a court of final jurisdiction of questions of law and general superintendence of inferior courts.[12] | ” |
Justices
The table below lists the current justices of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, their political party, and when they assumed office.
Judicial selection
- See also: Judicial selection in New Hampshire
The five justices on the New Hampshire Supreme Court are selected by gubernatorial appointment. The governor's nominee must be confirmed by the New Hampshire Executive Council.[13][14] The five members of the executive council are chosen every two years in partisan elections.[15] As of April 2023, it had been customary since 2000 for the governor to establish a judicial selection commission by executive order to seek out, evaluate, and recommend candidates for nomination.[16][17]
Justices may serve on the court until they reach the mandatory retirement age of 70.[18]
Qualifications
State law does not stipulate any particular qualifications for appointment to the supreme court.[19]
Chief justice
The chief justice of the supreme court is selected by gubernatorial appointment. The position of chief justice is a specific seat on the court rather than a temporary leadership position.[20][19]
Vacancies
Vacancies on the court are filled through gubernatorial appointment. A judicial selection commission recommends candidates to the governor, the governor selects a candidate, and the candidate must be confirmed by the Executive Council.[19] There is one current vacancy on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, out of the court's five judicial positions. The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.
Caseloads
The table below details the number of cases filed with the court and the number of dispositions (decisions) the court reached in each year.[21][22][23][24][25]
| New Hampshire Supreme Court caseload data | ||
|---|---|---|
| Year | Filings | Dispositions |
| 2023 | 754 | 728 |
| 2022 | 746 | 608 |
| 2021 | 614 | 625 |
| 2020 | 607 | 676 |
| 2019 | 762 | 722 |
| 2018 | 712 | 714 |
| 2017 | 733 | 720 |
| 2016 | 705 | 727 |
| 2015 | 750 | 834 |
| 2014 | 829 | 920 |
| 2013 | 893 | 876 |
| 2012[26] | * | * |
| 2011 | 910 | 934 |
| 2010 | 880 | 888 |
| 2009 | 934 | 871 |
| 2008 | 948 | 983 |
| 2007 | 924 | 1096 |
Three Judges Expedited (3JX)
In 2000, the supreme court began using a three-judge expedited docket process, referred to as the 3JX panel, to review appeals. Judges on the panel alternate monthly. Parties to the case are allowed five minutes of oral argument, and the panel must issue a unanimous written decision. If the panel does not reach a unanimous decision, the parties may be required to file additional briefs, or the case may be brought before the full court.[27]
According to the Rules of the Supreme Court, 3JX panel decisions are nonprecedential.[28] To view 3JX panel decisions, click here.
Analysis
Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters (2021)
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters, a study on how state supreme court justices decided the cases that came before them. Our goal was to determine which justices ruled together most often, which frequently dissented, and which courts featured the most unanimous or contentious decisions.
The study tracked the position taken by each state supreme court justice in every case they decided in 2020, then tallied the number of times the justices on the court ruled together. We identified the following types of justices:
- We considered two justices opinion partners if they frequently concurred or dissented together throughout the year.
- We considered justices a dissenting minority if they frequently opposed decisions together as a -1 minority.
- We considered a group of justices a determining majority if they frequently determined cases by a +1 majority throughout the year.
- We considered a justice a lone dissenter if he or she frequently dissented alone in cases throughout the year.
Summary of cases decided in 2020
- Number of justices: 5 (1 vacant through 2020)
- Number of cases: 73
- Percentage of cases with a unanimous ruling: 93.2% (68)
- Justice most often writing the majority opinion: Justice Hicks (22)
- Per curiam decisions: 1
- Concurring opinions: 1
- Justice with most concurring opinions: Justice Hantz Marconi (1)
- Dissenting opinions: 5
- Justice with most dissenting opinions: Justice Hantz Marconi (1)
For the study's full set of findings in New Hampshire, click here.
Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship (2020)
- See also: Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship
Last updated: June 15, 2020
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country as of June 15, 2020.
The study presented Confidence Scores that represented our confidence in each justice's degree of partisan affiliation, based on a variety of factors. This was not a measure of where a justice fell on the political or ideological spectrum, but rather a measure of how much confidence we had that a justice was or had been affiliated with a political party. To arrive at confidence scores we analyzed each justice's past partisan activity by collecting data on campaign finance, past political positions, party registration history, as well as other factors. The five categories of Confidence Scores were:
- Strong Democrat
- Mild Democrat
- Indeterminate[29]
- Mild Republican
- Strong Republican
We used the Confidence Scores of each justice to develop a Court Balance Score, which attempted to show the balance among justices with Democratic, Republican, and Indeterminate Confidence Scores on a court. Courts with higher positive Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Republican Confidence Scores, while courts with lower negative Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Democratic Confidence Scores. Courts closest to zero either had justices with conflicting partisanship or justices with Indeterminate Confidence Scores.[30]
New Hampshire had a Court Balance Score of 3.25, indicating split control of the court. In total, the study found that there were 15 states with Democrat-controlled courts, 27 states with Republican-controlled courts, and eight states with Split courts. The map below shows the court balance score of each state.
Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores (2012)
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan outlook of state supreme court justices in their paper, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns." A score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology while scores below 0 were more liberal. The state Supreme Court of New Hampshire was given a campaign finance score (CFscore), which was calculated for judges in October 2012. At that time, New Hampshire received a score of -0.99. Based on the justices selected, New Hampshire was the 4th most liberal court. The study was based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges, or—in the absence of elections—the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice but rather an academic gauge of various factors.[31]
Noteworthy cases
The following are noteworthy cases heard before the New Hampshire Supreme Court. For a full list of opinions published by the court, click here. Know of a case we should cover here? Let us know by emailing us.
| • Ruling on constitutionality of school funding allocation (1997) (Claremont School District v. Governor) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
|
In Claremont School District v. Governor of New Hampshire, the city of Claremont, New Hampshire, alleged that the state's system of allocating funds for education was unconstitutional. The plaintiffs were five school districts, five children, and five taxpayers, one from each district. The lawsuit alleged that New Hampshire failed to "spread educational opportunities equitably among its students," and that an 8 percent cap on state aid to public education was unconstitutional. By 1997, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the funding system unconstitutional. In 2005, plaintiffs filed another suit alleging that the state had still not met its constitutional requirements. In Londonderry School District v. State on September 8, 2006, the court ordered the state to define a "constitutionally adequate education" by June 2007.[32][33][34] | |
| • Model jury instructions (1978) (State v. Wentworth) | Click for summary→ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
In 1978, the supreme court suggested a set of model jury instructions "to avoid needless litigation." In part, the instructions read:
| ||||
| • Ruling on powers of attorneys general (1971) (Bowkowsky v. State) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
|
On February 26, 1971, the supreme court ruled that the attorney general may enter a nolle prosequi, whether the prosecution originated with a public official or a private individual.[36] | |
| • U.S. Supreme Court ruling on "subversive persons" (1957) (Sweezy v. New Hampshire) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
|
On Fourteenth Amendment grounds, the United States Supreme Court overturned the New Hampshire Supreme Court's affirmation of contempt against Paul Sweezy, who was found in violation of a "subversive persons" law for refusing to answer questions by the attorney general and the superior court. The federal supreme court found that the state supreme court's finding of contempt violated Sweezy's right to due process.[37] | |
| • U.S. Supreme Court's "fighting words" doctrine (1942) (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
|
On appeal from the New Hampshire Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the state court's conviction of a man for using offensive words in a public place. Establishing the "fighting words" doctrine, the federal court ruled that the state law did not violate the defendant's freedom of speech. The court found that because the defendant's offensive language was "likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace," his speech was not constitutionally protected.[38] | |
| • Judicial review in New Hampshire (1818) (Merrill v. Sherburne) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
|
In September 1818, the New Hampshire Supreme Court of Judicature ruled that in particular cases, the court had the exclusive power of applying law, and therefore the power of judicial review. Justice Levi Woodbury called the practice of "restoration to law" unconstitutional. This was the practice of enacting legislation to grant new trials in particular cases. Merrill v. Sherburne has historically been considered the New Hampshire equivalent to Marbury v. Madison, but it was not the first time judicial review was practiced in the state.[39][40] | |
Ethics
The New Hampshire Code of Judicial Conduct sets forth ethical guidelines and principles for the conduct of judges and judicial candidates in New Hampshire. It consists of four overarching canons:[41]
| “ |
|
” |
The full text of the New Hampshire Code of Judicial Conduct can be found here.
Removal of justices
There are two methods for removing supreme court justices:
1. The governor may remove a justice with the approval of the executive council upon the address of the legislature. According to Part 2 Article 73 of the New Hampshire Constitution:[42]
| “ | The governor with consent of the council may remove any commissioned officer for reasonable cause upon the address of both houses of the legislature, provided nevertheless that the cause for removal shall be stated fully and substantially in the address and shall not be a cause which is a sufficient ground for impeachment, and provided further that no officer shall be so removed unless he shall have had an opportunity to be heard in his defense by a joint committee of both houses of the legislature.[12] | ” |
2. The legislature may remove a justice through impeachment and conviction. According to Part 2 Article 38 of the New Hampshire Constitution:[43]
| “ | The senate shall be a court, with full power and authority to hear, try, and determine, all impeachments made by the house of representatives against any officer or officers of the state, for bribery, corruption, malpractice or maladministration, in office.[12] | ” |
History of the court
New Hampshire Supreme Court building
In 1776, six months before signing the Declaration of Independence, New Hampshire's newly created house of representatives approved a constitution. This was a temporary document, not approved by voters, designed to transition the territory through the war for independence. Based on this constitution, the colony abolished the court of appeals and put an end to the practice of allowing appeals to go to the king of Great Britain. A superior court of judicature was created instead, and was recognized by the legislature as the only appellate body in New Hampshire. The court had four justices, appointed by the legislature. The superior court of judicature remained largely unchanged until 1876.[44][45]
New Hampshirites passed a new New Hampshire Constitution in 1784, four years before statehood, that remains in effect today. The justices of the superior court of judicature were to hold their positions for life with good behavior. A 1791-92 convention modified the judicial portion of the constitution providing for a supreme court with 7-10 justices, where justices were divided into two circuits and only three judges were required to hold court. The court gained civil jurisdiction in cases valued at more than four pounds. The supreme court heard trials at the county level and it also heard appeals.[46]
In 1876 an act was passed by the legislature creating a supreme court as the highest court in the state, with five justices. In 1877 the legislature added two justices, bringing the total number of justices to seven. In 1901 the legislature made major changes to the supreme court by creating two different courts: a superior court with jurisdiction over county trials that had previously been heard by the supreme court during "trial terms," and a supreme court, consisting of five justices, with jurisdiction over questions of law brought on appeal from other courts.[47]
In 1966 state residents passed the New Hampshire Supreme and Superior Court Amendment (1966) providing that the state supreme and superior courts are constitutional courts and therefore can only be abolished or changed by constitutional amendment.[48]
In the 1970s constitutional amendments were passed unifying the court system to provide for more efficient administration, establishing the chief justice of the supreme court as the administrative head of the court system, and requiring the chief to have the advice and consent of the chief justice of the superior court. A 24-member judicial council was also established as an independent forum to consider issues in the administration of justice.[49]
Courts in New Hampshire
- See also: Courts in New Hampshire
In New Hampshire, there is one federal district court, a state supreme court, and trial courts with both general and limited jurisdiction.
Click a link for information about that court type.
The image below depicts the flow of cases through New Hampshire's state court system. Cases typically originate in the trial courts and can be appealed to courts higher up in the system.
The structure of New Hampshire's state court system.
Party control of New Hampshire state government
A state government trifecta is a term that describes single-party government, when one political party holds the governor's office and has majorities in both chambers of the legislature in a state government. A state supreme court plays a role in the checks and balances system of a state government.
New Hampshire has a Republican trifecta. The Republican Party controls the office of governor and both chambers of the state legislature.
New Hampshire Party Control: 1992-2025
Four years of Democratic trifectas • Fourteen years of Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.
| Year | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Governor | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Senate | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | R | R | R | R | R |
| House | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | R | R | D | D | R | R | R | R | D | D | R | R | R | R | R |
See also
External links
- New Hampshire Supreme Court | About the Supreme Court
- New Hampshire Supreme Court | Meet the Justices
- New Hampshire Supreme Court | Opinions
Footnotes
- ↑ The salary of the chief justice may be higher than an associate justice.
- ↑ New Hampshire Judicial Branch, "About the Supreme Court," accessed August 25, 2021
- ↑ Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire, "Rule 2. Term and Sessions," accessed August 25, 2021
- ↑ Note: In New Hampshire, a judicial selection commission has been established by executive order. The commission's recommendations are not binding.
- ↑ New Hampshire Judicial Branch, "Supreme Court - Judicial Duties," accessed August 25, 2021
- ↑ Justia US Law,"New Hampshire Supreme Court Decisions," accessed June 21, 2024
- ↑ Justia US Law,"New Hampshire Supreme Court Decisions," accessed June 21, 2024
- ↑ New Hampshire Judicial Branch,"Supreme Court," accessed June 21, 2024
- ↑ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,"An Introduction to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire," accessed June 21, 2024
- ↑ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,"An Introduction to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire," accessed June 21, 2024
- ↑ The General Court of New Hampshire, "New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated Title LI," accessed August 25, 2021 (Section 490:4)
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ New Hampshire Judicial Branch, "About the Supreme Court," accessed August 24, 2021
- ↑ NH.gov, "State Constitution - Executive Power - Governor," accessed August 24, 2021 (Article 46)
- ↑ State of New Hampshire Executive Council, "About Us," accessed August 24, 2021
- ↑ National Center for State Courts, "Judicial Selection in the States: New Hampshire | Overview," accessed August 24, 2021
- ↑ New Hampshire Secretary of State, "Executive order 2000-9: An order establishing a Judicial Selection Commission," June 30, 2000
- ↑ The General Court of New Hampshire, "New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated Title LI," accessed August 24, 2021 (Section 493:2)
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 National Center for State Courts, "Methods of Judicial Selection: New Hampshire | Selection of Judges," accessed August 24, 2021
- ↑ While a 2001 law amended Section 490:1 of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes to make the chief justice position a rotating position based on seniority, the New Hampshire Supreme Court found this law to be unconstitutional in 2004.
- ↑ New Hampshire Judicial Branch, "State of New Hampshire Judicial Branch Biennial Report 2007-2008," accessed September 18, 2019 (page 14)]
- ↑ New Hampshire Judicial Branch, "Financial and Statistical Report " July 26, 2012 (page 11)
- ↑ New Hampshire Judicial Branch, "New Hampshire Supreme Court 2013-2017," accessed September 18, 2019
- ↑ New Hampshire Judicial Branch, "New Hampshire Supreme Court 2016-2020," accessed August 25, 2021
- ↑ New Hampshire Judicial Branch, "New Hampshire Supreme Court 2019-2023," accessed September 25, 2024
- ↑ Data not available
- ↑ The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, "New Hampshire's Three-Judge Expedited Docket,"
- ↑ New Hampshire Judicial Branch, "Supreme Court - 3JX Final Orders," accessed August 25, 2021
- ↑ An Indeterminate score indicates that there is either not enough information about the justice’s partisan affiliations or that our research found conflicting partisan affiliations.
- ↑ The Court Balance Score is calculated by finding the average partisan Confidence Score of all justices on a state supreme court. For example, if a state has justices on the state supreme court with Confidence Scores of 4, -2, 2, 14, -2, 3, and 4, the Court Balance is the average of those scores: 3.3. Therefore, the Confidence Score on the court is Mild Republican. The use of positive and negative numbers in presenting both Confidence Scores and Court Balance Scores should not be understood to that either a Republican or Democratic score is positive or negative. The numerical values represent their distance from zero, not whether one score is better or worse than another.
- ↑ Stanford University, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns," October 31, 2012
- ↑ Claremont Lawsuit Coalition, "Claremont School Dist. v. Governor," archived October 23, 2014
- ↑ New Hampshire Judicial Branch, "Claremont School District v. Governor," December 17, 1997
- ↑ National Education Access Network, "New Hampshire Supreme Court requires state to define an adequate education," archived June 23, 2015
- ↑ 35.0 35.1 Justia US Law, "State v. Wentworth," 1978
- ↑ Casetext, "Bokowsky v. State," February 26, 1971
- ↑ Justia US Supreme Court, "Sweezy v. New Hampshire," June 17, 1957
- ↑ Justia US Supreme Court, "Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire," March 9, 1942
- ↑ The American Journal of Legal History, "Interpretation and Authority: Separation of Powers and the Judiciary's Battle for Independence in New Hampshire, 1786-1818," Vol 39, No, 3, July 1995
- ↑ New Hampshire Bar Association, "Judicial Review and Its Limits; Part I (Legitimacy)," archived March 5, 2007
- ↑ Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire, "Rule 38. Code of Judicial Conduct.," accessed August 25, 2021
- ↑ NH.gov, "State Constitution - Judiciary Power," accessed August 25, 2021 (Part 2 Article 73)
- ↑ NH.gov, "State Constitution - Senate," accessed August 25, 2021 (Part 2 Article 38)
- ↑ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,"An Introduction to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire," accessed June 21, 2024
- ↑ New Hampshire Historical Society,"Timeline of New Hampshire History," accessed June 21, 2024
- ↑ Google Books,"The Ninth State," accessed June 21, 2024
- ↑ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,"An Introduction to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire," accessed June 21, 2024
- ↑ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,"An Introduction to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire," accessed June 21, 2024
- ↑ New Hampshire Judicial Branch,"History of the Court," accessed June 21, 2024
| Supreme Courts | |
|---|---|
| Federal | |
| State | Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • D.C. • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oklahoma Criminal • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Texas Criminal • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming |