Rand v. State

In Claremont School District v. Governor, the New Hampshire Supreme Court interpreted the state constitution to include an enforceable right to an adequate education. In subsequent decisions, the Court further interpreted the State’s corresponding obligations: (1) defining an adequate education, (2) determining the cost of providing that education, (3) funding that cost through taxes, and (4) establishing a system of accountability to ensure schools are meeting education standards and performance.

In this appeal, the State asks the Court to overturn Claremont and its progeny, arguing that those decisions misinterpret the New Hampshire Constitution and have proved unworkable for the government. Alternatively, the State also argues that the political question doctrine prevents courts from reviewing the State’s decisions about defining and funding an adequate education.

The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, the ACLU of New Hampshire, and the National Education Association-New Hampshire filed an amicus brief arguing that the Court’s version of stare decisis weighs against overturning decades of established precedent. Our brief emphasizes that municipalities, school systems, and individual Granite Staters have come to rely on the guarantees of Claremont and its progeny. Overturning these cases would upend settled expectations, and property-poor communities and communities of color would bear the brunt of the consequences.

Our brief also explains that the Court’s existing framework for recognizing a state constitutional right to an adequate education is both legally sound and still workable. To demonstrate this, our brief examines courts in other states who have recognized state constitutional rights to education and imposed requirements analogous to the four obligations established in New Hampshire.