KEENE, N.H. (MyKeeneNow) Former Executive Councilor and attorney Andru Volinsky said New Hampshire could see dramatic changes to how public education is funded if the state Supreme Court overturns the landmark Claremont decisions, during an appearance last week on Good Morning with Dan Mitchell on WKBK Radio.

Volinsky, who served as lead attorney in the original Claremont school funding cases in the 1990s, joined Mitchell’s live morning program to discuss a recent appeal filed by the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office. The state is asking the Supreme Court not only to review a recent trial court ruling in the ongoing Rand case, but also to reconsider the foundational Claremont rulings themselves.

A Return to Claremont

The Claremont decisions — Claremont I (1993) and Claremont II (1997) — established that the New Hampshire Constitution requires the state to define, provide, and fund an adequate public education. The rulings also found that overreliance on local property taxes to pay for schools was unconstitutional.

Volinsky told Mitchell the state’s latest appeal marks a significant shift in strategy.

“For the first time in years of litigation,” Volinsky said, “the state is explicitly asking the New Hampshire Supreme Court to reverse the Claremont decisions.”

The appeal follows a ruling last summer by Rockingham County Superior Court Judge David Ruoff in the Rand case. Ruoff found that the state’s current level of adequacy funding is insufficient and that New Hampshire has been unconstitutionally shifting education costs onto local communities. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the state’s appeal.

What’s at Stake

During the interview, Mitchell pressed Volinsky on what overturning Claremont could mean for taxpayers.

Volinsky said the consequences could be substantial.

New Hampshire currently spends roughly $4 billion annually on K–12 public education, with about 20 percent — approximately $800 million — coming from the state. When the Claremont litigation began in the early 1990s, the state contribution was closer to 6 percent.

“If Claremont is reversed,” Volinsky said, “the constitutional protections regarding the state’s responsibility go away.”

He argued that without those protections, state funding could become fully discretionary and potentially decrease significantly, shifting more responsibility to local property taxpayers.

Mitchell noted that property taxes are already a major concern for many New Hampshire residents. “Nobody votes thinking they want their property taxes to skyrocket,” he said during the exchange.

Volinsky responded that the Rand plaintiffs are not asking for more total spending on education, but rather for a more equitable distribution of the funding burden across the state.

Questions of Judicial Recusal

A portion of the discussion focused on whether certain Supreme Court justices should recuse themselves from the case. Volinsky noted that some current members of the Court previously served in the Attorney General’s Office during related litigation.

Under New Hampshire’s system, justices decide for themselves whether to step aside from a case. Volinsky said his legal team plans to file recusal motions within the required timeframe.

If one or more justices recuse, the Court follows a prescribed process to appoint replacement judges, potentially drawing from retired justices or members of the Superior Court bench.

The Road Ahead

Volinsky outlined the appellate process, explaining that after the filing of the appeal, transcripts must be prepared and legal briefs submitted before oral arguments are scheduled. He estimated that arguments could take place later this year, with a decision likely to be months afterward.

The case could have long-term implications for how education is funded in New Hampshire, a state that already ranks among the lowest nationally in percentage of state contribution to public schools.

Throughout the interview, Mitchell framed the issue in terms of taxpayer impact and political accountability, while Volinsky emphasized constitutional precedent and the potential fiscal consequences of reversing decades-old rulings.

As the appeal moves forward, the outcome may determine whether the state’s role in funding public education remains constitutionally mandated — or becomes largely discretionary.

Listen to the full interview: