fbpx

ConVal Lawsuit

This ongoing lawsuit was filed by the ConVal School District in 2019, arguing that the state has failed to meet its constitutional obligation of funding an adequate education. Since its filing, 18 other school districts have joined as plaintiffs.

The trial for this case concluded in May 2023. Read below to learn about the main arguments being made in the case, and a timeline of the important rulings that have been made so far as we await the judge’s final ruling.

If you are looking for information on the taxpayer lawsuit, Rand, et al v. State of New Hampshire, click here.

March 2019 to July 2019 - Filing and Superior Court Ruling

The ConVal School District filed the lawsuit in March 2019, claiming that the State was failing to meet its constitutional obligation to fund education and instead downshifting the majority of the costs onto municipalities. They argue that the legislative committee that developed the number used for adequate education payments excluded expenses like school nurses (which are required by the State, but unfunded) and for underestimating the cost of other services, like transportation.

The plaintiffs were seeking declaratory judgement stating that the State was violating the NH Constitution by failing to provide enough funding for education, and for an injunction to be issued preventing the State from continuing to do so.

The State objected, and following a few motions, Judge David Ruoff issued a 98-page opinion ruling that the state law that defined the amount of an adequate education was unconstitutional as it was being applied to ConVal, but was not, on its face, unconstitutional. Also, Judge Ruoff made no judgement on what an appropriate amount would be, instead directing the task to the state legislature, as has been done in other school funding decisions.

Download a PDF of the Filing Read the Decision

August 2019 to March 2021 - NH Supreme Court Appeal

Following the ruling, both the State and the plaintiffs appealed to the NH Supreme Court regarding different parts of the case and the decision. The appeals were accepted by the court in September 2019. A number of motions and amicus briefs were filed, the case was argued in front of the court on September 24, 2020, and a decision was issued March 23, 2021.

In its decision, the court ruled that because the statute defining the cost of an adequate education is clear, and does not cite the 2008 joint legislative report as the basis for the number, the lower court erred by relying on the report to invalidate the statute. But, the court added that to resolving this dispute, there needed to be a determination of what was actually required of school districts by the state, and what that costed, before there could be a ruling on if the adequacy number was constitutionally sufficient. They ordered the case be sent back to the lower court to answer that question.

Read the Supreme Court’s Decision

March 2021 to May 2023- Case Remanded to Lower Court

Following the NH Supreme Court remanding the case back to Judge Ruoff. Following months of discovery and both sides retaining experts and preparing, the trial was held from April 11 to May 5.

Read the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint Read the State’s Response

During the trial, the State had no positive defense for its failure to adequately fund education, and instead tried to attack the plaintiffs’ number. None of the State’s expert witnesses, or even the NH Commissioner of Education, had any opinion on what the cost of adequacy should be, despite the State already having all of the expenditure data for every school district in the State. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge provided no timeline for when he would have a ruling.

At the conclusion of the trial, the judge gave both sides the opportunity to make one more filing with their final arguments, based on what had happened in the court room. You can read those below.

Plaintiffs’ Final Arguments State’s Final Arguments

Press Coverage of the Trial

Union Leader: “School funding trial opens; superintendents say impossible to educate at $3,800 per kid”

NH Business Review: “At school funding trial, commissioner declines to define an adequate education”

NH Business Review: “NH’s obligation at heart of school-funding case”

November 2023 - Court Rules Adequacy Funding Unconstitutionally Low

On November 20, the Court issued its ruling in the case, funding that base adequacy was unconstitutionally low.

Read the Decision

The court held that, while the legislature ultimately has the final say on the cost of adequacy, to be a constitutional level of funding, “the base adequacy cost can be no less than $7356.01 per pupil per year and the true cost is likely much higher than that.” The court sided with the plaintiffs that expenses like transportation, school nurses, and facilities expenses like heat, electricity, and snow clearing were clearly necessary costs for school districts to be able to provide students with an adequate education.

Following this ruling, the State moved to have the case reconsidered, so that there will be a final decision that it can appeal, and also filed a motion seeking to stay the decision until the completion of the appeals process plus 1 full legislative cycle (July 1 to June 30), meaning the decision would likely not be enforceable until July 1, 2026 at the earliest. The State argued that the court has no role to play in the policy making process, and that by setting a floor for base adequacy it infringed upon the ability of the legislature to determine the amount that base adequacy should be increased by. This argument means the State believes the legislature should be able to increase base adequacy from $4,100 to $4,101. Clearly, the court’s decision to set a base adequacy floor was meant to protect student’s constitutional right to a state funded, adequate education from that kind of legislative inaction.

Read the Motion to Stay Read the Motion to Reconsider

On February 20, 2024, the court issued a ruling denying both the motion to stay and the motion to reconsider. On February 28, the State filed a motion with the New Hampshire Supreme Court to have the decision stayed pending appeal, and on March 13, the NH Supreme Court granted that motion to stay, putting the enforcement of the ruling on hold and kicking off the next phase of the case’s litigation.

Read the Decision Read the State’s Motion to the NH Supreme Court Read the NH Supreme Court’s Stay Order

News Coverage

August 2024 - NH Supreme Court Briefs

On August 19, the State filed its initial brief to the NH Supreme Court in the appeal of the case, arguing that the $7,356.01 base adequacy amount set by the Superior Court was wrongly decided. Much as it had throughout the trial and in its previous filings, the State offered no positive defense for the current base adequacy amount, and instead focused on attacking the alternative amount and the methods used to determine it.

Read the State’s Brief

The plaintiffs responded on October 3, rebuffing many of the State arguments and calling back to the NH Supreme Court’s 2021 order in this case that remanded it to the Superior Court for a trial to determine the costs and components of an adequate education.

Read the Plaintiffs’ Brief

Several amicus briefs have been filed in this case, including a brief from the taxpayer plaintiffs in Rand v. State of New Hampshire. The NH Charitable Foundation filed a brief arguing that schools face significant challenges because of unconstitutionally low State funding, and the inequities created by that system mean not all students are being sufficiently prepared for work, higher education, or participation in civic life. The Foundation noted on its website that this is the first time in its 62-year history that it has filed an amicus brief. 

There was also a brief submitted by the Speaker of the NH House and 30 other legislators. The main argument of their brief was that the NH Supreme Court should treat the Claremont decisions the same way the US Supreme Court examined Roe v. Wade in its Dobbs v. Jackson decision. They argue that because this is a complicated question that the courts continue to be asked to rule on, clearly there must be an issue with the initial ruling that prevents the legislature from complying with the solution. For that reason, the brief argues, it is acceptable not only to ignore long standing precedent but to overturn it and return the issue entirely to the legislature.

Read the Rand Plaintiffs’ Brief Read the Charitable Foundation’s Brief Read the Legislators’ Brief

December 2024 - NH Supreme Court Arguments

Oral arguments were held at the NH Supreme Court on December 10. The school district plaintiffs continued to make their case that State adequacy aid is unconstitutionally low and insufficient to actually provide students with an education. The State did not try to defend the current adequacy amount, and instead argued for the narrowest possible definition of adequacy, excluding essential services like transportation, school nurses, and even school buildings with heat and electricity.

Watch the Arguments

July 2025 - NH Supreme Court Finds Base Adequacy Unconstitutionally Low

On July 1, the NH Supreme Court issued its ruling on the case, finding that the State’s base adequacy aid was unconstitutionally low, and had to be increased to the “conservative minimum threshold” of at least $7,356.01 per pupil.

Read the Decision

In a 3-2 decision, written by Justice Bassett and joined by Justices Nadeau and Abramson, retired Superior Court Justices called on to hear this case, the Court upheld the Superior Court’s ruling that base adequacy aid was insufficient to actually provide students with an adequate education, and agreed with the Superior Court’s minimum threshold that base adequacy aid must exceed.

A separate 3-2 vote, with a majority of Justice Bassett joined by Justices Countway and Donovan, overturned the Superior Court’s ruling that the State immediately increase base adequacy aid. This piece of the decision was made out of deference to the role of the legislative and executive branches, but the citations included in the decision make it clear that the Court fully expects Legislature and Governor to act to fulfill the requirements set forth in this ruling and bring the laws in line with the NH Constitution.

Additional Resources

Read some of the press coverage of this case.