Public School Students and Taxpayers Win in Ruling from New Hampshire Court

In a major victory for New Hampshire public school students and taxpayers, Judge David Ruoff of Rockingham Superior Court ruled in Rand v. State that the adequacy funding level set by the State for public schools is unconstitutionally low, requiring local taxpayers to fill the gap with municipal revenue. The court found that inadequate state funding violates the education clause of the New Hampshire Constitution, as well as its mandate that any taxes to fund education be equal in valuation and uniform in rate.

The court issued the decision in August 2025. However, the State then moved for reconsideration. The court held hearings on the State’s motion in October 2025. In a decision released on January 26, 2026, the trial court reaffirmed its ruling and denied the State’s motion for reconsideration.

However, in February, the State filed a notice of appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, seeking not only to reverse Judge Ruoff’s decision, but to overrule longstanding New Hampshire precedent: Claremont v. New Hampshire. In that decision from the New Hampshire Supreme Court over 30 years ago, the justices ruled that the state constitution imposed a requirement to ensure all New Hampshire students have the opportunity for an adequate education.

Rand Trial

The trial in the Rand case was held in October 2024. During the trial, the plaintiffs presented expert testimony from retired Pittsfield Superintendent John Freeman, who demonstrated that the total adequacy amount, approximately $4,500 per student, was woefully insufficient to even provide enough teachers for the State’s required subjects, let alone the additional services necessary for students with disabilities and other students with additional needs. Adequacy is the amount of funding required to afford all students an opportunity for an adequate education. This testimony was corroborated by another former superintendent, Corinne Cascadden of Berlin. The court also heard from Dr. Jennifer Dolloff, who testified about the cost of services for students with disabilities, and Annette Blake, who testified about the cost of counseling services. 

The plaintiffs in Rand v. State are taxpayers from across the state. They are represented by New Hampshire attorneys Natalie LaFlamme, John Tobin, and Andru Volinsky; pro bono attorneys from the law firms White & Case and Harter Secrest & Emery; and Education Law Center.

ConVal

Judge Ruoff also presided over a related case, Contoocook Valley School District v. State (ConVal). The plaintiffs in that case, public school districts, challenged the sufficiency of New Hampshire’s base adequacy funding, which is the amount of funding the State determines is necessary to fund a student with no additional needs. The Rand plaintiffs, by contrast, challenged the sufficiency of the State’s total adequacy funding, consisting of base adequacy plus “differentiated aid,” or the additional funding provided for students who qualify for free and reduced-price lunch, English learners, and students with disabilities. In November 2023, Judge Ruoff ruled in Conval that base adequacy (approximately $4,100 per pupil) was inadequate, and that a conservative estimate for constitutionally adequate base adequacy is at least  $7,356.01 per pupil. The State then appealed the ConVal ruling to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

In July 2025, while the decision on the Rand trial was pending, the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld Judge Ruoff’s decision in ConVal.

Rand Decision

In August 2025, the trial court issued its decision, ruling that the State’s total adequacy amount (base adequacy aid plus differentiated aid) is constitutionally inadequate. The court specifically found that the adjustment for students with disabilities was unconstitutionally low. As a result, the court concluded that forcing local taxpayers to compensate for the State’s inadequate education funding violated the constitutional requirement for uniform tax rates.

The State then moved for reconsideration of the court’s decision, arguing that there was no connection between the harm to taxpayers and the remedy (increasing state adequacy aid), and that since local taxes for education are not state taxes, there is no violation of the constitutional requirement that state tax rates be uniform. 

On January 26, the court denied the motion for reconsideration, rejecting the State’s arguments. The court ruled that increasing adequacy aid would indeed remedy the harm to taxpayers, because they would no longer have to compensate for insufficient State funding with local taxes, and there would no longer be non-uniform tax rates. The court affirmed that because State education funding is inadequate, the State is forcing local taxpayers to fill the gap with local revenue. That local revenue is effectively an unconstitutional state tax.

“With his ruling, Judge Ruoff reaffirmed New Hampshire’s longstanding precedent safeguarding the constitutional rights of both public school students and taxpayers,” said Wendy Lecker, Senior Attorney at Education Law Center. “Any attempt to use this case to eliminate these constitutional protections will have grave consequences for students, taxpayers and democracy in the state.”

Alice Tsier, Pro Bono Counsel at White & Case, said that, “This case is the latest in a long line of lawsuits to enforce the State’s duty under the New Hampshire Constitution to provide an adequate education and fund it with constitutional taxes. We’re hopeful that the New Hampshire Supreme Court will recognize this and instructs the state to act accordingly.”

Matthew Lively, also of White & Case, said that, “This case is also about respect for the judiciary, as the state has unconstitutionally underfunded schools despite court orders to provide an adequate education to the people of New Hampshire.”

John Tobin, one of the plaintiffs’ New Hampshire counsel, said, “As the case proceeds on its second trip to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, all of our taxpayer plaintiffs and our New Hampshire legal team are incredibly grateful to Education Law Center and the pro bono attorneys from White & Case and Harter Secrest & Emery for their nearly four years of dedicated and skillful legal work, which has been absolutely vital to our ability to pursue this case.”

Related Stories

New Hampshire Supreme Court Rules State Violated Constitution by Underfunding Public Schools

Major Victory for Students in Two New Hampshire School Funding Lawsuits

Press Contact:
Sharon Krengel
Director of Policy, Strategic Partnerships and Communications
skrengel@edlawcenter.org
973-624-1815, x240