Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald and the Crisis of Integrity in the New Hampshire Supreme Court

By Jeffrey Thomas Clay

The recent handling of my appeal by the New Hampshire Supreme Court has raised not only legal concerns but also grave questions of honesty and integrity at the very top of our state’s judicial system. Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, a former Attorney General of New Hampshire, has now overseen a decision that disregards both the plain meaning of RSA 91-A (our Right-to-Know Law) and RSA 641 (prohibiting false statements and concealment of government records). In doing so, he applied a legal standard that does not exist in New Hampshire law and used that fiction to dismiss my appeal.

A Pattern of Evasion

MacDonald’s order in my case is not simply a poor legal ruling—it is a calculated evasion of the laws he is sworn to uphold. RSA 91-A makes clear that public records belong to the people and cannot be hidden behind contracts or backroom agreements. RSA 641 criminalizes the knowing concealment or falsification of public records. Yet the Chief Justice turned away from these statutes entirely, legitimizing a settlement contract that waives citizens’ transparency rights, as though the Legislature never wrote the protections into law.
This is not just a judicial mistake. It is the conscious use of an illegal standard—one that effectively rewrites the law from the bench and strips citizens of rights guaranteed by the Constitution and by statute.

Truthfulness Under Scrutiny

These actions must be viewed alongside another matter of public concern. Chief Justice MacDonald was reportedly informed of Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi’s stated intention to speak with Governor Chris Sununu. If MacDonald now tells investigators something different, it would suggest a pattern: not only ignoring binding law in written decisions, but also shading or distorting the truth when accountability is at stake.
If a Chief Justice is willing to look past statutory violations in a public-records case, what confidence should the people of New Hampshire have that he will be truthful with investigators probing judicial conduct? The suspicion is unavoidable: a man who will contort the law to protect government secrecy may also bend the truth to protect himself or his colleagues.

The Stakes for Public Trust

The integrity of the judiciary rests on two pillars: fidelity to the law and honesty in all dealings. In my appeal, Chief Justice MacDonald abandoned the first by ignoring RSA 91-A and RSA 641. If he is now misleading investigators about what Justice Hantz Marconi told him, he has abandoned the second.
Together, these failures strike at the heart of public trust. New Hampshire citizens cannot be asked to respect rulings that openly defy the law, nor can they accept leadership from a Chief Justice whose truthfulness is in question.

A Call for Accountability

This moment demands more than silence or deference. The people of New Hampshire must insist that their Supreme Court adhere to the laws it is sworn to interpret and enforce. Chief Justice MacDonald owes the people an explanation: why did he ignore binding statutes in dismissing my appeal, and has he been fully truthful with investigators about the conduct of his fellow justice?

Until those questions are answered with transparency and honesty, the legitimacy of the state’s highest court remains deeply compromised.