#

Attorneys challenging Tennesse’s law banning sex-change medical procedures for children before the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday struggled to make their case before skeptical judges. If the court upholds Tennessee’s law, that would add more support to a similar law here in New Hampshire.

The Biden administration’s Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar joined ACLU attorney Chase Strangio in challenging the law. They suffered a major setback when Strangio was forced to admit a commonly-used argument regarding sex-change treatment for minors and suicide is in fact false.

Both the Biden administration and the ACLU argue Tennessee’s ban, which is similar to the ban Gov. Chris Sununu signed into law this summer, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. They argue that because hormone treatments can be given to minors struggling with the impacts of puberty to advance their sexual development — such as giving males testosterone — but these treatments can’t be used to change a child’s sex — giving testosterone to females — it is discriminating on the basis of sex.

Without those treatments, children deemed to be suffering from gender dysphoria will be at risk of suicide, according to Prelogar.

“Left untreated, gender dysphoria can result in severe physical and psychological harms. Those harms include ‘debilitating distress, depression, impairment of function, substance use, self-surgery to alter one’s genitals or secondary sex characteristics, self-injurious behaviors, and even suicide,’” Prelogar wrote in her brief to the Court. 

Alito confronted Prelogar with multiple studies that found no significant change in suicide rates, including research from Sweden and Great Britain. For example, he cited the United Kingdom’s Cass Review, which found little evidence to further the viewpoint that the benefits of transgender treatment are greater than the risks.

“I wonder if you would like to stand by the statement in your position, or if you think it would now be appropriate to modify that and withdraw your statement?” Alito asked.

Chase Strangio, the ACLU lawyer who was born a biological woman and now identifies as a man, conceded the facts show suicide among untreated transgender adolescents does not happen, but claimed untreated transgender kids think about suicide.

“Completed suicide is thankfully and admittedly rare,” Strangio said. 

The actual rarity of transgender-identifying adolescents committing suicide hasn’t stopped Democrats from using the trope to argue in favor of surgically altering children or allowing schools to socially transition kids behind their parent’s back.

New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley claimed transgender kids would kill themselves if schools were legally barred from hiding transitioning efforts from parents.

“[The children] will be kicked out or beaten (to death) or commit suicide,” Buckley wrote on social media.

Strangio also didn’t help the cause by appearing on CNN and suggesting that children as young as two years old know they were born in the wrong bodies.

“These are doctors who are wanting to treat their patients in the best way that they know how, based on the best available evidence to us,” Strangio said of doctors who give hormone treatments to young children. “And these are young people who may have known since they were two years old exactly who they are, who suffered for six or seven years before they had any relief.”

Given the Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, it is likely to side with Tennessee and uphold the ban. The conservative justices generally expressed skepticism that the medical science surrounding transgender adolescents is settled as more data comes in from Europe showing the harms of using surgery and hormone therapy on children, contradicting the current state of medicine in America.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the fact that the medical communities in progressive European countries are expressing reservations should give leaders in America pause.

“If it’s evolving like that and changing, and England’s pulling back and Sweden’s pulling back, it strikes me as a pretty heavy yellow light, if not red light, for this court,” Kavanaugh said.

The United States Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over whether states have the right to ban gender reassignment medical procedures for minors. It’s a case that could impact New Hampshire’s newly-passed law.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Biden administration want to overturn the transgender surgery ban put in place by Tennessee. It outlaws doctors giving puberty-blocking medications to children whose parents identify them as transgender. The law also bans doctors from performing procedures like vaginoplasties, the surgical creation of a vagina from other parts of the body; phalloplasty, the surgical creation of a penis; and metoidioplasty, the transformation of a clitoris to a penis, on children.

Supporters of those bans note the surgeries are permanently disfiguring and difficult — if not impossible — to entirely reverse. Earlier this year, the Biden administration released a policy statement declaring its opposition to sex-change surgery for minors.

That was a reversal from the same Biden health officials whose original draft guidelines would have lowered the age minimums to 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies.

In response to those aggressive actions by the federal government, states began passing laws banning the extreme procedures from being performed on children. Tennessee’s ban is similar to the law Gov. Chris Sununu signed this summer, HB 619.

“HB 619 ensures that life-altering, irreversible surgeries will not be performed on children,” Sununu said in his signing statement.

If the Biden administration and the ACLU are successful at the Supreme Court arguing against the Tennessee ban, HB 619 could be in trouble. However, conservative lawyer Ian Huyett with Cornerstone, said even if Tennessee wins, New Hampshire could still lose.

“The Tennessee case is about whether a state can ban gender transition therapy for minors under the federal Equal Protection Clause,” Huyett told NHJournal. “New Hampshire has a narrower ban on genital reassignment surgery on minors, RSA 332-M, that is similar to Tennessee’s law. A victory for Tennessee in this case could insulate that law from federal Equal Protection Clause challenges.

“However, our state courts in New Hampshire are the final authority on the New Hampshire Constitution—and they do not need to follow the federal courts. Our state courts could still hold that the state Constitution provides a right to chemically castrate minors, or a right to go into the locker rooms of the opposite sex. That could then be the law in New Hampshire for 10 years, regardless of what the US Supreme Court says,” according to Huyett.

The ACLU lawyer who will be arguing the case before the Supreme Court claimed Tuesday that children as young as two years old can “know” they were born in the wrong bodies.

“Our argument is that it treats people differently because of their sex,” attorney Chase Strangio — who was born female and now lives as a male — told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “These are young people who may have known since they were two years old who they are … It’s not the kids who are consenting to the treatment, it’s the parents who are consenting to the treatment.”

Strangio claimed years of medical data show gender reassignment surgeries and puberty blockers are good for transgender children.

“This is medical treatment that provides critical benefits to adolescents that need it,” Strangio said. 

However, the data does not actually show that children need gender reassignment. Great Britain banned puberty blockers for children after the National Health Service commissioned Dr. Hilary Cass to perform an independent review of medical treatment for children who identify as transgender. The Cass Report found a shocking lack of data to back up the life-changing treatments given to children.

“The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress,” the Cass Report states. 

Several other European countries, including Sweden, Norway, and France, are taking a more restrictive approach to gender-reassignment procedures as more data become available.

In the U.S., however, studies that raise questions about gender reassignment have been suppressed or left unpublished due to politics.

For example, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, or WPATH, is the group that developed the SOC-8 guidelines for medical care for children for the federal Health and Human Services agency. 

WPATH is the group that recommends castrations as a medical treatment for men who identify as eunuchs. Even still, WPATH’s first draft of the SOC-8 guidelines included age limits for children seeking gender reassignment treatment. But Biden’s Surgeon General Rachel Levine, a transgender woman, reportedly pressured WPATH to remove age restrictions from the SOC-8 draft, court records show. 

WPATH was caught hiding evidence that did not support gender reassignment surgeries and other treatments for children in other instances, according to court records.

Dr. Karen Robinson, research team leader from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine working on SOC-8, reported to HHS that WPATH was suppressing her research because it found there is no real evidence gender reassignment surgeries actually helped children. 

Robinson first reported to HHS that her researcher looked at the reported benefits of gender reassignment procedures and “found little to no evidence about children and adolescents.” At the same time she told HHS that WPATH was blocking her from publishing the report.

“[WPATH is] trying to restrict our ability to publish,” Robinson wrote to HHS.

WPATH was simply enforcing its policy that all SOC-8 researchers write articles that “use the Data for the benefit of advancing transgender health in a positive manner,” according to court records.

The person accusing New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi of potential lawbreaking is Gov. Chris Sununu.

The person prosecuting her alleged wrongdoing, Attorney General John Formella, works for Sununu.

And that, Hantz Marconi’s lawyers argue, is a conflict of interest. So they’re asking Merrimack Superior Court Judge Martin Honigberg to throw out the case as a result.

Prosecutors from the Attorney General’s Office say it’s just her legal team’s attempt to grab a get-out-of-free card.

It’s now up to Merrimack Superior Court Judge Martin Honigberg to decide who’s right.

Hantz Marconi is accused of illegally trying to influence Sununu to intervene in the criminal investigation involving her husband, Ports Director Geno Marconi, during a June meeting. Geno Marconi was indicted three months later on charges he leaked confidential driver’s license records and destroyed evidence.

In Merrimack Superior Court in Concord on Monday, Hantz Marconi’s lawyer, Richard Guerriero, said Formella cannot fairly prosecute the case due to his personal and professional relationship with Sununu. Formella represented Sununu in private practice, worked on Sununu’s original transition team after the 2016 election, served as the governor’s counsel, and now owes his current position as attorney general to Sununu. 

“Every accused person is entitled to a prosecutor who is impartial,” Guerriero said. “I don’t think we can ignore the fact Attorney General Formella has a close relationship with this one very powerful public official.”

Formella is supposed to represent every New Hampshire citizen as attorney general, but he can’t do that fairly given his previous role as Sununu’s attorney and his attorney general duties that require he represent the governor in civil matters.

The case has highlighted a problem that comes from a system where the attorney general is selected by the state’s chief executive. In 43 states and the District of Columbia, the top cop is elected by the voters. Only four other states follow the New Hampshire model.

“A prosecutor cannot serve two masters,” Guerriero said. “He can’t be loyal to his client, and at the same time fairly assess the merits of a possible case against an accused person.”

Assistant Attorney General Joe Fincham countered that the alleged conflict of interest Guerriero is claiming is nothing more than an attempt to derail any criminal charges against Hantz Marconi.

“The defense is asking for immunity. If you commit a crime in front of the governor … you are immune from prosecution in the state of New Hampshire,” Fincham said. “This alleged conflict means no one can prosecute this defendant … which is an absurd result.”

But Guerriero said prosecutors are trying to blame him when they knew for months Formella’s conflict is a live legal issue in the case. He spoke to them before the case against Hantz Marconi was brought to a grand jury, urging them to appoint a special prosecutor. Short of hiring an outside prosecutor, Guerriero said they could have taken steps to remove Formella from the prosecution and shield him from the case to protect Hantz Marconi’s rights and avoid the conflict. But that did not happen.

“This could have been different,” Guerriero said. “But they plowed ahead and now we’re here three months later.”

Guerriero wants the charges dismissed and have the state start over with a new, independent prosecutor. Because grand juries only consider evidence presented by a prosecutor, without any argument from a defense attorney, it’s essential the prosecutor be absolutely fair and impartial, Guerriero said.

“The only protection we have at the grand jury is if the prosecutor is impartial,” Guerriero said.

For his part, Honigberg seemed skeptical of Guerriero’s argument Formella is conflicted due to his role as civil litigator for Sununu and the rest of the executive branch. The judge remarked every attorney general represents every governor in civil matters while also prosecuting every criminal case. 

But things get murky when it comes to the matter of Formella’s prior relationship with Sununu.

Attorney-client ethics rules mean Formella is bound not to disclose information he learned about Sununu in private practice and as the governor’s counsel, even if it is exculpatory for Hantz Marconi, Honigberg noted. 

Guerriero, speaking hypothetically to the judge, suggested that if Formella knew something about Sununu’s statements or actions regarding the Pease Development Authority (PDA).

“Suppose there was some interest of Sununu’s in the Pease Development Authority that [Formella] discussed with Sununu. It’s knows [Sununu’s] taken action at Pease. Suppose something the governor said about Pease becomes an issue, contrary to what he’s saying now,” Guerriero said.

Geno Marconi clashed with the Pease Development Board over a proposed Rye Harbor development. While the board and Sununu supported spending $1 million in federal money on a raised shopping area at the harbor, Marconi and his co-defendant Brad Cook opposed the plan. The PDA backed off the plan in September following a push back from the community. Geno Marconi is accused of leaking private information of an individual known as N.L. in the indictments. It’s believed that N.L. is Neil Levesque, PDA vice chair and the executive director of the New Hampshire Institute for Politics at Saint Anselm College. 

Add Neil Levesque, executive director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, to the list of high profile names involved in the odd scandal surrounding Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi and her husband, Geno Marconi. 

Both Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi and Geno Marconi face criminal charges in a case that’s already roped in Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, Gov. Chris Sununu, and Attorney General John Formella. The biggest mystery involving the Marconis is what, exactly, they allegedly did.

When Geno Marconi waived his arraignment in Rockingham Superior Court last week on his criminal charges, he was ordered to have no contact with Levesque as part of his bail conditions. Levesque is also the Pease Development Authority’s vice chair, the body that suspended Geno Marconi from his job as ports director in April.

Geno Marconi allegedly disclosed the driving records of an individual known as N.L. in court documents, and then later erased a voicemail message regarding those records. Geno Marconi’s codefendant in that case is Brad Cook, the chairman of the Division of Ports and Harbors Advisory Council and a longtime fishing boat captain.

Judge Hantz Marconi is due in Merrimack Superior Court Monday for an arraignment on charges she allegedly abused her office when she tried to get Sununu to intervene in her husband’s pending investigation during a June meeting.

Since she was indicted in October, Hantz Marconi’s lawyers have already filed motions to dismiss the charges, and to get Formella booted from the case. According to her filings, Hantz Marconi sought advice from MacDonald before she talked to Sununu, resulting in the Chief Justice telling her she had a legal right to speak to the governor about her concerns. 

Hantz Marconi wants Formella removed from the case due to his long-standing personal and professional relationship with the government’s star witness, Sununu. Formella was Sununu’s private attorney before becoming legal counsel in office, and then attorney general.

New Hampshire’s $100 million housing investment, InvestNH, is starting to pay off.

“InvestNH was absolutely critical in allowing more housing to be built,” said developer Jack Franks.

Franks, president and CEO of Avanru Development Group, said InvestNH’s help was key to some of his new affordable housing projects in Newport, Swanzey, and Hillsborough.

“Hillsborough would not have happened,” Franks pointed out.

Polls consistently show housing costs are a top priority for Granite Staters, and many of the state’s employers say housing is one their biggest challenges in attracting quality workers. Using federal ARPA relief funds to get more apartments and homes built, InvestNH is making a difference, though there’s still a long way to go.

“This crisis is not going to be solved overnight, but we are working with local leaders to get them the resources they need to match housing needs in their community,” said Department of Business and Economic Affairs Commissioner Taylor Caswell.

Administered by the BEA, InvestNH has already impacted more than 4,657 new housing units throughout the state, according to Caswell, with more to come.

BEA worked through InvestNH to create a capital grant program to fund the development of affordable housing; a demolition program to assist municipalities in preparing for or addressing housing challenges and project developments in older dilapidated properties; a per-unit incentive grant program that awarded municipalities $10,000 per unit of approved affordable housing, and the Housing Opportunities program, which assisted 67 communities to review and develop planning and zoning strategies to facilitate appropriate housing in their towns.

“The goal with these one-time funds has been to help accelerate affordable housing units getting to market and setting the stage for more private investment in affordable housing statewide by providing incentives and resources to local communities,” Caswell said.

BEA used InvestNH to fund: $64 million for the Capital Grant program that impacted 1,605 new units; $16.2 million for the Per Unit Grants program that impacted 1,910 units; $11.5 for the Demolition Grants program that impacted 2,302 units; and $7.9 million for the Housing Opportunity Planning Grants program that went to 67 communities throughout the state.

BEA’s new state Housing Champions program will soon be able to continue the InvestNH programs, thanks to state general funds totaling $15 million.

Even with InvestNH, New Hampshire has a vacancy rate of around 1 percent or less, according to Franks, leaving Granite Staters to pay more for rent or looking out of state for a decent home they can afford.

“It’s beyond critical mass at this point. It’s at absurdity, the amount of housing that’s needed in the state,” Franks said.

Of his three new developments, two were fully rented soon after opening. Both the Swanzey and Newport apartment projects now have waiting lists, and the Hillsborough development is taking applications now.

The biggest obstacle to building more affordable housing that Franks encounters are the sometimes redundant and contradictory local regulations that slow construction, or stymie projects altogether. Franks hopes incoming Gov. Kelly Ayotte will work to streamline those regulations and cut the red tape that make the housing crisis worse. 

Ayotte told NHJournal she’s ready to help.

“Tackling New Hampshire’s housing crisis is a key priority for my administration — we need more housing for our workforce, our seniors, our families, and every community across our state,” Ayotte said. “As Governor, I’ll work to streamline the state permitting process, cut unnecessary red tape that creates barriers to construction, and bring stakeholders together to discuss how we can incentivize construction of more affordable housing while respecting local control. Working together, we’ll keep New Hampshire moving in the right direction.”

Attorney General John Formella and his entire office need to be dismissed from Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi’s criminal case due to serious conflicts of interest, according to her attorney Richard Guerriero.

“Attorney General Formella and his subordinate attorneys should not have been handling this matter before the grand jury and should not be prosecuting it now,” Guerriero wrote in a motion filed Thursday.

Ultimately, Guerriero wants all of the charges dismissed. Short of that, he wants Formella and his office removed from the case entirely. The concern Guerriero raises is that Formella not only has a long-standing personal and professional relationship with Gov. Chris Sununu, but he considers himself to be the chief executive’s lawyer in his role as attorney general.

Hantz Marconi is charged with felonies for allegedly trying to pressure Sununu to drop the criminal investigation into her husband, New Hampshire Ports Director Geno Marconi. That makes Sununu, Formella’s friend and client, the state’s key witness in the alleged crimes. 

Before becoming attorney general, Formella was a private attorney working for Sununu and his family who worked on the campaign for governor, and then became Sununu’s legal counsel in office. In his role as attorney general, Formella told NHJournal during a podcast interview that he considers himself Sununu’s attorney. 

“As far as the relationship with the governor, for every attorney general, the governor is probably their most important client. So, it’s an attorney-client relationship,” Formella said. 

The attorney general is the state’s chief prosecutor as well as the governor’s attorney in civil matters, according to memos from the Department of Justice.

Formella is tasked with making decisions on criminal prosecutions handled by his office, and he is in charge of directing his staff who handle the day-to-day work. With Hantz Marconi’s case, the prosecution is being handled by the Public Integrity Unit (PIU), which was created by order of Sununu in 2020 and not the legislature. Guerriero wrote that means the PIU can be subject to Sununu’s wishes, and not the work of the public.

“As a result of how it was created, Gov. Sununu has unique power over the PIU. Sununu determines what funding to recommend to the legislature for the PIU. Furthermore, he has the power to unilaterally dissolve the unit by executive order,” Guerriero wrote.

Because of that lack of impartiality, all of the indictments need to be dismissed, Guerriero wrote. The charges were handed up by a grand jury two weeks ago, but because of Formella and his office’s conflict of interest, Guerriero argues the grand jury’s findings should be discounted. Grand jury proceedings happen in secret, and there is no one representing the accused. Instead, prosecutors alone present evidence for the jurors to consider.

“If there is any chance a grand jury will make a fair decision about whether to indict a person, rather than simply signing off on the indictments presented to them, it depends on the impartiality of the prosecutors,” Guerriero wrote. “The prosecutors here are not impartial.”

Four Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, have recused themselves from the case. MacDonald, like Sununu, is a witness in the case as he reportedly told Hantz Marconi she had a right to talk about her husband’s investigation with the governor before the June meeting at the heart of the matter.

“I think you can do that. You are a constituent and have concerns,” MacDonald reportedly said.

Hantz Marconi then made an appointment with Sununu through official channels to speak with him on June 6 in his office. Sununu’s current legal counsel, Rudolph Ogden attended the meeting, which was on Sununu’s official calendar.

“The meeting was open and documented in multiple ways — not exactly the usual route to corruption,” Guerriero wrote.

Hantz Marconi and Gereero maintain there was no crime committed, and the state has not alleged any actual criminal acts.

Hantz Marconi allegedly told Sununu there was no merit to any of the allegations against her husband and the case “needed to wrap up quickly because she was rescued from important cases pending or imminently pending before the New Hampshire Supreme Court,” the indictments state.

No threat was made, nor was there any improper request, Guerriero claims. Prosecutors have not yet made their evidence available to the defense, so it is not clear who reported Hantz Marconi to Formella. Earlier this week, a panel of substitute judges sitting for the recused Supreme Court ordered Hantz Marconi’s law license suspended based on the fact she’s been charged with a felony.

Geno Marconi has been on leave from his job directing the ports since April of this year while the criminal investigation into his alleged acts proceeded. Geno Marconi and Bradley Cook, the chairman of the Division of Ports and Harbors Advisory Council and a longtime fishing boat captain, were both indicted the same week as Hantz Marconi. Geno Marconi is accused of giving confidential driving records of an unnamed person to Cook, though the official charges give very little detail about the alleged crime. 

Hantz Marconi is facing charges of Attempt to Commit Improper Influence, Criminal Solicitation of Improper Influence, Official Oppression, Criminal  Solicitation of Official Oppression, Obstructing Government Administration, and Criminal Solicitation of Misuse of Position. Geno Marconi is indicted on felony charges of Tampering with Witnesses and Informants and Falsifying Physical Evidence. He’s also charged with four class A misdemeanors – two counts of Driver Privacy Act Violations and two counts of Obstructing Government Administration.

The four remaining New Hampshire Supreme Court justices won’t hear any arguments related to Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi after they ordered themselves off the case.

“Resolving it would require us to adjudicate the conduct of a current colleague, Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi,” the justices wrote in the order.

The order comes Wednesday hours after Hantz Marconi’s legal team filed a motion to boot Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald from the case, naming him as a material witness in her alleged crime. Hantz Marconi is charged with trying to pressure Gov. Chris Sununu to stop the criminal probe into her husband, New Hampshire Ports Director Geno Marconi.

Justice Barbara Hantz Marconi listens to oral arguments during a 2023 hearing.

According to the indictments handed down last week, Hantz Marconi met with Sununu in June and tried to get him to stop the investigation into Geno Marconi. She allegedly told Sununu there was no merit to any of the allegations against her husband and the case “needed to wrap up quickly because she was recused from important cases pending or imminently pending before the New Hampshire Supreme Court,” the indictments state.

But, according to the motion filed Wednesday, MacDonald encouraged her to talk to Sununu about her husband’s investigation, and told her it would not be illegal for her to do so.

“Justice Hantz Marconi did meet with Governor Sununu on June  6, 2024. The meeting was entirely lawful and proper. One of the key facts demonstrating that the meeting was lawful and proper is that Justice Hantz Marconi communicated with Chief Justice MacDonald prior to meeting with Governor Sununu. Justice Hantz Marconi explained to Chief Justice MacDonald that she was considering requesting a meeting with the Governor. The Chief Justice’s response was, ‘I think you can do that – You  are a constituent and have concerns.’ Justice Hantz Marconi understood this comment to confirm her view that she had the right to seek to address the Governor, just as any other citizen would have that right,” her motion states.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald

Hantz Marconi was placed on administrative leave soon after that June 6 meeting. Geno Marconi has been on leave from his job directing the ports since April of this year. Both were indicted last week.

Hantz Marconi is facing charges of Attempt to Commit Improper Influence, Criminal Solicitation of Improper Influence, Official Oppression, Criminal Solicitation of Official Oppression, Obstructing Government Administration, and Criminal Solicitation of Misuse of Position. Geno Marconi is indicted on felony charges of Tampering with Witnesses and Informants and Falsifying Physical Evidence. He’s also charged with four class A misdemeanors–two counts of Driver Privacy Act Violations and two counts of Obstructing Government Administration.

Geno Marconi is accused of giving confidential driving records of an unnamed person to Brad Cook, chairman of the Division of Ports and Harbors Advisory Council and a longtime fishing boat captain. Cook is charged with one count class B felony Perjury as well as two counts of class A misdemeanor False Swearing.

In the meantime, Hantz Marconi agreed to a suspension of her law license as the case against her is proceeding. The New Hampshire Attorney Discipline Office planned to open up a formal proceeding to get Hantz Marconi suspended, but the justice agreed to the suspension.

If she were to fight the Attorney Discipline process, Hantz Marconi’s law license case would eventually end up before the Supreme Court and MacDonald. The Supreme Court’s total recusal effects that process, as well any challenges she brings during her criminal trial in Merrimack Superior Court.

Rather than merely having MacDonald remove himself from the case, Associate Justices James Bassett, Patrick Donovan, and Melissa Countway are also stepping aside. If a full slate of alternates cannot be found, however, at least some of the justices will take their seats.

“Our recusal is conditioned upon the availability of substitute justices to participate in this case. In the event that substitute justices are not available, the ‘rule of necessity’ may compel our participation,” the order states. 

Under state law, the courts will randomly pick substitutes from a pool of retired Supreme Court and Superior Court justices. If there are not enough retired justices available, a random selection will be made from active Superior Court Justices, and then District Court justices if the need arises.

New Hampshire’s only death row inmate wants his sentence for killing a police officer commuted, and his clemency quest may become part of this year’s election.

Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs was murdered 18 years ago, leaving behind a wife and young children. His killer, Michael “Stix” Addison, was quickly caught, tried, and convicted of capital murder. The woman who prosecuted the case and sought the death penalty, Kelly Ayotte, could be the next governor. 

Addison, 44, was in Merrimack Superior Court in Concord on Monday seeking to have the death sentence imposed by the original unanimous jury overturned.

Ayotte told NHJournal on Monday she still believes Addison should face the ultimate punishment for murdering Michael Briggs.

“As attorney general, I sought a death sentence for Michael Addison for his cold-blooded murder of Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs. The jury found Addison guilty of capital murder and imposed the death sentence. I testified against the repeal of the death penalty, and I still believe that he should be executed for killing Officer Briggs,” Ayotte said.

Despite having served as mayor of Manchester, the city Officer Briggs served, Democrat Joyce Craig has said little about Addison’s attempt to avoid the death sentence.

Craig would not respond to a request for comment from NHJournal about the convicted murderer’s request for leniency. When asked by WMUR if she supported clemency for Addison, she gave a one-word reply:

“No.”

Manchester’s crime problem on her watch, along with homelessness and opioid addiction, have emerged as key issues in the campaign for governor. Those issues plagued her time as mayor and helped get Republican Jay Ruais elected last year. 

Addison’s attorney, Jon Cioschi, pointed to New Hampshire’s decision to repeal the death penalty in 2019 (HB 455) in his current arguments for commutation. Cioschi said the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the United States Constitution.

But Assistant Attorney General Audriana Mekula said in court that the New Hampshire Supreme Court has already weighed in on Addison’s case, upholding the death sentence.

“As it stands, the historical and textual analysis is the way to look at this, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court has already held that the sentence, the death penalty, in general and as applied to this particular petitioner, is constitutional,” Mekula said.

The state Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence in a 2013 ruling, and in a 2015 sentence review. Both rulings found Addison’s death sentence does not violate the Constitution and that the sentence is appropriate.

“We conclude that the defendant’s sentence is neither excessive nor disproportionate and, accordingly, affirm his sentence of death,” the Supreme Court ruled in 2015.

But Cioschi said the 2019 repeal law is evidence New Hampshire no longer supports the death penalty and imposing death on Addison violates the will of the people.

“HB 455, the repeal, is clear, reliable, objective evidence that the death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in New Hampshire.” Cioschi said. 

While the legislature voted to pass HB 455, Gov. Chris Sununu vetoed the law, saying it represented a miscarriage of justice for Briggs and his surviving family.

“This bill is an injustice to not only Officer Briggs and his family, but to law enforcement and victims of violent crime around the state,” Sununu said at the time.

The legislature voted to override the veto, however, and the repeal became law more than 20 years after Addison was sentenced to die by lethal injection.

Addison and his partner in crime, Antoine Bell-Rodgers, had pulled off three violent armed robberies in the days before Briggs was murdered. On Oct. 16, 2006, Briggs and fellow Manchester Police Officer John Breckenridge responded to a report of a fight at the home of Bell-Rodgers and Addison. 

The two men allegedly tried to leave when they saw the officers, but Briggs ordered the pair to stop. Bell-Rodgers did stop, but Addison kept walking away. Briggs again ordered him to stop, and that was when Addison turned around and shot Briggs in the head. Briggs, at that point, had not upholstered his pistol. Addison fled the state, and was later caught in Dorchester, Mass.

Bell-Rodgers is currently serving a 60-years-to-life sentence for his role. 

During his appeal, Addison argued that his difficult childhood, including a drug addicted mother who abused him, were mitigating factors in the crime. Addison was 26 when he killed Briggs. 

Not mentioned in Addison’s litany of mitigating factors is the fact he knew Briggs before the murder. In 2003, Briggs saved his life, giving Addison first aid after Addison was shot by another man in Manchester. 

Judge Daniel St. Hilaire ordered both sides to provide more information for their arguments. The next hearing is set for October.

A federal judge ruled Monday that a male Plymouth Regional High School who identifies as a girl can still play on the girl’s soccer team.

United States District Court Judge Landya McCafferty, an Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order allowing Parker Tirrell, 15, to keep playing, in violation of HB 1205, the new law banning biological boys from girls sports.

The order only applies to Tirrell and no other students in New Hampshire. However, McCafferty said in her order that a more broad injunction against the law is possible following a hearing set for Aug. 27.

The cause of the high school sports careers of Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, a Pembroke Academy boy who also identifies as a transgender girl, is being championed by GLAAD and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire in the federal lawsuit filed earlier this month.

Turmelle is not playing on any fall sports teams and was not part of Monday’s hearing.

HB 1205 which took effect on Monday, was passed in the wake of a series of high-profile incidents in which biological males won girls championships or injured female competitors while playing girls sports in New England. But GLAAD lawyer Chris Erchull argued Monday that Tirrell has no physical advantages over the girls since having started hormone therapy, according to NHBulletin reporting.

Assistant Attorney General Michael DeGrandis argued against the temporary restraining order, telling McCafferty there is no need to block the law while the case is pending.

Monday’s hearing came as a social media rumor swirled that the state planned to make a deal on the temporary restraining order with Tirrell and the GLAD and ACLU lawyers. New Hampshire Department of Justice General Counsel Chris Bond told NHJournal no deal was ever in the works.

“There is not now and there never was a deal regarding entry of a TRO. The Attorney General’s Office is responsible for defending the duly enacted laws of the State of New Hampshire when they are challenged in court. Given that mandate, the AGO will not voluntarily assent to a TRO that would result in the temporary suspension of the provisions of [the law],” Bond said in an email.

Those on the left see McCafferty’s ruling as the first victory in abolishing the law.

“Transgender youth, like all adolescents, want and deserve every opportunity to experience joy, including through activities like school sports. We won’t stop fighting until they have that opportunity again,” the ACLU posted on social media.

Meanwhile, some on the right are frustrated, not by Monday’s ruling, but by the law itself. Cornerstone Action Executive Shannon McGinley said HB 1205 was doomed to fail due to the actions of Gov. Chris Sununu.

Last month, when Sununu signed HB 1205 to keep biological males out of girls sports he also vetoed HB 396, a law that would have made it legal for the state to make legal distinctions based on biological sex and separate men from women in bathrooms, locker rooms, and jails.

“The new law uses birth certificates as the definition of biological sex – an unwieldy and unworkable concept that has failed both practically and legally around the country,” McGinley said.

“What Gov. Sununu has just done is a fraud, not a compromise. He caved entirely to the most far left 10 percent of the state while giving nothing to female prisoners, athletes, and vulnerable students,” McGinley said.

Gov. Chris Sununu likes to tout his pro-business bona fides, but they aren’t stopping him from targeting the wildly popular social media platform TikTok with a lawsuit accusing the company of putting profits ahead of children.

“Our lawsuit alleges that TikTok has shamelessly exploited young users through deceptive design features that foster addiction and endanger mental health. We contend that TikTok knowingly deceived New Hampshire families with false assurances of safety while profiting from the vulnerabilities of its youngest users,” Sununu’s Attorney General John Formella said in a statement announcing the lawsuit, filed in Merrimack Superior Court.

The suit attacks TikTok for allegedly violating the state’s consumer protection statute and other laws.

According to the lawsuit, TikTok uses addictive features to exploit young users’ naivete and ongoing brain development and maximize the time they spend on the platform in the interest of profit. TikTok’s addictive design features make it hard for children to disengage from the platform and lead to a cycle of excessive use, the lawsuit states.

The complaint alleges the company knows excessive use results in profound harm to its young users, including depression, anxiety, and isolation from friends and family. As the company deployed those features, it also lied to parents about the platform’s safety, downplaying the risks posed while touting supposed safety measures that the company knows are ineffective. 

“New Hampshire puts our kids first,” Sununu said. “This lawsuit, combined with our earlier executive order investigating the harms of social media on New Hampshire’s youth is another wakeup call for parents on the dangers that social media presents to our kids.”

New Hampshire filed a similar lawsuit against Meta last year, the company behind Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. That lawsuit is currently pending.

“This action underscores our commitment to holding social media platforms accountable for their harmful actions to youth. We will vigorously pursue this case to ensure that TikTok is held responsible and that meaningful changes are made to protect our children’s well-being. This lawsuit is just the latest step in our ongoing efforts to ensure that platforms like TikTok operate responsibly and transparently in our state,” Formella said.

 The lawsuit contends TikTok knew it was deploying potentially harmful features on its platform, gathering data on children under 13, exploiting them for money, and even exposing them to online predators.

“New Hampshire’s children are spending increasingly alarming amounts of time on screens. In 2021, over 37 percent of New Hampshire high schoolers reported 5 hours or more of screen time on an average school day. The U.S. Surgeon General has warned that unchecked use of applications like TikTok has ‘a profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents,’” the lawsuit states.

As more of their hours are taken by TikTok, New Hampshire children are being exposed to child sex abuse images and videos, content that promotes self harm, extreme violent content, and even online social interactions with pedophiles, according to the lawsuit. All this despite assurance the company is doing everything it can to keep kids safe.

“TikTok has long been a haven to incredibly disturbing, gruesome videos, including beheadings, mass shootings, and videos of both suicide and eating disorders. TikTok also knows sexual predators use the App to solicit nude photographs and other photographs from/of children,” the lawsuit states.

Formella wants the Court to enter an injunction requiring substantive changes in how the company operates. He’s also seeking penalties and other monetary relief to address the harms that these practices have caused. 

The attorney general’s investigation of other social media platforms for related practices continues.

TikTok, the controversial social media giant is making billions by trapping New Hampshire kids in a psychologically harmful and potentially dangerous web of endless scrolling, according to the lawsuit filed Tuesday by New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella.