Rand Attorneys Again Seek Recusals from MacDonald and Will in Education Funding Appeal

August 31, 2026 - 20:32

The legal team representing the Rand plaintiffs has filed another motion asking the New Hampshire Supreme Court to remove Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald and Associate Justice Daniel Will from hearing the state's appeal in the long-running education funding case. The renewed request comes after the same attorneys previously sought their recusal without success.

The motion argues that both justices have conflicts that prevent them from ruling fairly on the matter. For MacDonald, the attorneys point to his past work as attorney general under Governor Chris Sununu, a period when the state took positions directly opposed to the Rand plaintiffs' claims. They say that involvement creates an appearance of bias, even if MacDonald did not personally handle the case. For Will, the filing cites his prior private practice work, which included representing school districts and other clients with interests tied to education finance. The lawyers contend that this background makes it impossible for Will to approach the appeal with the required neutrality.

The case itself stems from a 2022 superior court ruling that found the state's current system for funding public schools unconstitutional. The state appealed that decision, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The plaintiffs argue that the state has failed to meet its constitutional duty to provide an adequate education, and they want the court to order a new funding formula.

The recusal motion is not new. The same request was made earlier in the proceedings, but the court denied it without explanation. The attorneys now say they are filing again because new information has come to light, including details about MacDonald's role in settlement discussions while he was attorney general. They also note that Will recently participated in a case involving a similar legal question, which they say further undermines his impartiality.

The Supreme Court has not yet set a date to rule on the latest motion. In the meantime, the appeal remains pending, and both sides are preparing for oral arguments. The outcome of the recusal request could significantly affect how the case is decided, since a change in the panel would alter the balance of the court. If either justice steps aside, the governor would need to appoint a substitute, likely a retired judge or a lower court justice, to sit temporarily.

Observers say the motion is a long shot. Courts are generally reluctant to remove justices based on past government service or prior legal work, especially when no direct personal involvement is shown. But the plaintiffs' lawyers are pressing the issue, arguing that the public's confidence in the court depends on a panel that appears completely impartial. They have asked for a hearing on the matter, though the court may choose to decide it based on written submissions alone.

For now, the case continues to move forward, with the next step likely being a decision on the recusal motion before any oral arguments are scheduled.