How the New Hampshire Supreme Court Judicially Repealed RSA 91-A and Shredded Its Oath

When a state’s highest court rubber-stamps an indefensible lower court order that destroys statutory transparency, it ceases to be an impartial arbiter of justice and becomes an accomplice to administrative corruption.

That is precisely what occurred in Case No. 2024-0474 (Town of Newmarket v. Jeffrey T. Clay), where Chief Justice MacDonald and Justices Donovan and Countway issued a brief, perfunctory order affirming Judge Andrew Schulman’s catastrophic ruling. By lazily labeling Schulman’s subversion of the law as a "well-reasoned order," the New Hampshire Supreme Court didn't just commit a routine legal error—it actively dismantled RSA Chapter 91-A and RSA Chapter 641, violating the public trust and spitting on the justices' oaths of office.

1. The Supreme Court's Complicity in Destroying RSA 91-A
The Right-to-Know Law was enacted to keep public business out of the dark. Yet, by summarily adopting Judge Schulman’s reasoning under Supreme Court Rule 20(3), the state's highest tribunal endorsed a judicial monster:

The "No-Prejudice" Absurdity: The Supreme Court endorsed the doctrine that a public body can violate open-meeting laws, conduct secret backroom email deals, and destroy public accountability with absolute impunity, unless an outsider can magically prove "prejudice".

Rewriting the Statute: By letting this stand, the Supreme Court effectively wrote a new exemption into RSA 91-A: Secrecy is legal if the government hides it so well you cannot prove what they said behind closed doors.

Sanctioning Suppression: To add insult to injury, the high court rewarded the municipal aggressors by granting their request for appellate costs and attorney's fees, punishing a citizen for daring to demand transparency.

2. Legalizing Falsification and Shielding Criminal Conduct Under RSA 641
By declaring Schulman’s order "well-reasoned," the Supreme Court did more than gut a civil statute; it provided judicial cover for conduct that directly collides with New Hampshire RSA Chapter 641 (Falsification in Official Matters):

Shielding False Certifications: When local officials and municipal lawyers file pleadings or certifications misrepresenting how closed-door agreements were reached, the Supreme Court's affirmance excuses those misrepresentations as harmless technicalities.

Tearing the Teeth Out of RSA 641:6: Falsifying or concealing physical records to impair an official proceeding is a class B felony. Yet, when the state’s highest court validates an administrative framework that normalizes unrecorded electronic consensus-building and missing minutes, it signals to every bureaucrat and lawyer in New Hampshire that destroying the paper trail of government business carries zero legal or criminal penalty.

3. The "Good Old Boys and Girls" Club Protecting Their Own
Let's call this what it is: institutional cronyism at its most grotesque.

When a lower court judge issues an atrocious, lawless opinion that bends over backward to rescue a municipality from its own illegal acts, a competent and honest Supreme Court's duty is to reverse it with prejudice. Instead, Chief Justice MacDonald, Donovan, and Countway hid behind a lazy, unsigned Rule 20(3) summary order to dodge accountability, refusing to issue a full, reasoned public opinion because they could not defend the indefensible under the plain text of the law.

This is nothing more than the judicial "good old boys and girls" club covering for each other. When judges insulate their colleagues from review, validate off-the-books government operations, and punish citizens who expose corruption, they violate their constitutional oaths of office.

If the New Hampshire Supreme Court can judicially repeal a foundational transparency statute with a single stroke of a pen, then constitutional governance in the Granite State is dead—replaced by a judicial oligarchy where the robes protect the robes, and the public is locked out in the dark.