Supreme Court rules SWEPT tax constitutional, settling one school funding issue
New Hampshire's Statewide Education Property Tax is equal and uniform and does not violate the New Hampshire Constitution, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, in a blow to state taxpayers who had sued the state and alleged unfairness.
In a 3-1 decision, the court held that the tax, known as the SWEPT, is administered fairly and evenly by the Department of Revenue Administration, even though wealthier towns might collect more than they need for their schools and keep the excess.
'Accordingly, regarding the 'excess SWEPT' issue, we hold that the SWEPT scheme is constitutional under Part II, Article 5 because it is 'administered in a manner that is equal in valuation and uniform in rate throughout the State,'' wrote Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald in the majority opinion.
The SWEPT is a mandatory process in which towns collect property taxes to pay for their schools. Under law, the state sets a goal each year for New Hampshire cities and towns to collect a combined $363 million, and each year the Department of Revenue Administration sets a tax rate per $1,000 of property value that towns must collect.
But that statewide tax rate typically results in towns with higher property values collecting far more from the SWEPT than towns with lower property values, and sometimes more than is needed to fund their schools. When the tax was enacted in 1999, those wealthier towns were required to relinquish any excess SWEPT revenues to the state to be redistributed to needier towns through the state's adequacy formula. But in 2011, then-Gov. John Lynch signed a law to allow those towns to keep the excess, after pushback by some communities that considered themselves 'donor towns.'
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Rand v. State, had argued that because the current system allows wealthy towns to collect more in property taxes than they need, and because those towns can use the excess to lower the overall percentage of property taxes paid, the tax is neither equal nor uniform in practice. Residents of towns with lower property values pay much higher local property tax rates as a percentage than those in wealthier towns, plaintiffs said.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs — who included Natalie LaFlamme as well as John Tobin and Andru Volinsky, two attorneys on the winning side of the landmark Claremont school funding decisions in the 1990s — had brought a motion for 'declaratory judgment' to the Supreme Court. That motion was intended to allow the Supreme Court to rule quickly on the constitutionality of the SWEPT tax before the rest of the case receives a hearing in superior court, in order to lay questions about the SWEPT tax to rest.
The court did put the question to rest Tuesday, but not in the plaintiffs' favor. MacDonald held that the SWEPT is administered evenly because the Department of Revenue Administration applies the same flat tax rate each year to all cities and towns, wealthy or poor. Whether those towns keep the excess revenue or not, and whether some towns raise enough to pay for schools or not, does not affect whether the underlying tax is unequal and does not make it unconstitutional, MacDonald wrote.
In doing so, MacDonald dismissed evidence from an expert indicating the difference in effective property taxes between towns.
'The plaintiffs do not dispute that under the SWEPT, as administered, taxpayers are actually assessed at a uniform rate. That concludes the constitutional inquiry,' MacDonald wrote. 'The 'effective rates' in the expert's data reflect, at most, an indirect effect of municipalities retaining excess SWEPT revenue, as the statutory scheme permits. Theoretical indirect effects of the scheme on municipalities are not relevant to the analysis under Part II, Article 5.'
Associate Justices Melissa Countway and Patrick Donovan concurred with MacDonald. But Senior Associate Justice James Bassett dissented on the question of the constitutionality of SWEPT.
Responding to MacDonald, Bassett argued that under SWEPT, taxpayers in poorer towns do face disparities in taxation compared to those in wealthier towns.
'The impact of the SWEPT scheme on taxpayers in excess SWEPT communities is anything but 'theoretical' or 'indirect': the effective SWEPT rate reduction those taxpayers enjoy is real and direct,' Bassett wrote. 'The impact of the SWEPT scheme on taxpayers in other communities that do not generate excess SWEPT is also real and direct: those taxpayers enjoy no comparable reduction in their effective SWEPT rate.'
The fifth associate justice, Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, has been on administrative leave from the court since July 2024, pending a criminal case against her for allegedly interfering with the criminal investigation of her husband.
The decision overrules parts of an earlier decision by Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff, who ruled in 2023 that the SWEPT was illegal.
The ruling does not end the Rand case; it merely answers plaintiffs' attempts to receive a declaratory judgment on SWEPT. The rest of the Rand case alleges that New Hampshire's adequacy formula, which currently gives a minimum of $4,182 per student to public schools that need aid, is far too low to pay for an adequate education and is unconstitutional.
The court did not rule on that question Tuesday. But it is currently considering a different school funding case, Contoocook Valley School District v. New Hampshire, in which a number of school districts have also alleged that the adequacy formula is too low to provide an adequate education. Oral arguments in that case, known as the ConVal case, took place at the Supreme Court in December. Ruoff has also ruled that the state's formula is unconstitutionally low.
The Supreme Court's expected ruling in the ConVal decision could affect how the rest of the Rand lawsuit plays out in superior court, now that the constitutionality of SWEPT has been affirmed by the high court. In an order sent in October, the court indicated that it is unlikely to overturn the Claremont decisions, in which the Supreme Court established the constitutional requirement that the state of New Hampshire ensure an adequate education.
Tuesday's ruling did include a partial victory for plaintiffs. The court held that use of 'negative tax rates,' in which the Department of Revenue Administration allows unincorporated towns that don't have school districts to offset their SWEPT tax with negative rates to effectively raise no SWEPT revenue, is unconstitutional.
But the court did not direct the state to stop setting negative tax rates. Instead, it said the process for doing so, and fixing the unconstitutional law, is in the hands of the legislative and executive branches.
'Resolving the constitutional infirmity in the State's practice of setting negative local tax rates is the responsibility of the other co-equal branches of government,' MacDonald wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge
President Trump is on a winning streak at the Supreme Court with conservative-majority justices giving the green light for the president to resume his sweeping agenda. Their recent blessing of his firings of more independent agency leaders is the latest example of the court going the administration's way. This White House in six months has already brought more emergency appeals to the high court than former President Biden did during his four years in office, making it an increasingly dominant part of the Supreme Court's work. But as the court issues more and more emergency decisions, the practice has sometimes come under criticism — even by other justices. Trump prompts staggering activity Trump's Justice Department filed its 21 st emergency application on Thursday, surpassing the 19 that the Biden administration filed during his entire four-year term. The court has long dealt with requests to delay executions on its emergency docket, but the number of politically charged requests from the sitting administration has jumped in recent years, further skyrocketing under Trump. 'The numbers are startling,' said Kannon Shanmugam, who leads Paul, Weiss' Supreme Court practice, at a Federalist Society event Thursday. Trump's Justice Department asserts the burst reflects how 'activist' federal district judges have improperly blocked the president's agenda. Trump's critics say it shows how the president himself is acting lawlessly. But some legal experts blame Congress for being missing in action. 'There are a lot of reasons for this growth, but I think the biggest reason, in some sense, is the disappearance of Congress from the scene,' Shanmugam said. In his second term, Trump has almost always emerged victorious at the Supreme Court. The administration successfully halted lower judges' orders in all but two of the decided emergency appeals, and a third where they only partially won. On immigration, the justices allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants and swiftly deport people to countries where they have no ties while separately rebuffing a judge who ruled for migrants deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Other cases involve efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy and spending. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to freeze $65 million in teacher grants, provide Department of Government Efficiency personnel with access to sensitive Social Security data, proceed with mass firings of probationary employees and broader reorganizations and dismantle the Education Department. Last month, Trump got perhaps his biggest win yet, when the Supreme Court clawed back federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions. The most recent decision, meanwhile, concerned Trump's bid to expand presidential power by eviscerating independent agency leaders' removal protections. The justices on Wednesday enabled Trump to fire three members on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Decisions often contain no explanation Unlike normal Supreme Court cases that take months to resolve, emergency cases follow a truncated schedule. The justices usually resolve the appeals in a matter of days after a singular round of written briefing and no oral argument. And oftentimes, the court acts without explanation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump's three appointees, have long defended the practice. Last year, the duo cautioned that explaining their preliminary thinking may 'create a lock-in effect' as a case progresses. At the Federalist Society event, Shanmugam suggested the court might have more energy for its emergency cases if the justices less frequently wrote separately on the merits docket — a dig at the many dissents and concurrences issued this term. But the real challenge, he said, is the speed at which the cases must be decided. 'It takes time to get members of the court to agree on reasoning, and sometimes I think it's therefore more expedient for the court to issue these orders without reasoning,' he said. 'Even though I think we would all agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for the court to provide more of that.' The frequent lack of explanation has at times left wiggle room and uncertainty. A month ago, the Supreme Court lifted a judge's injunction requiring the Trump administration to provide migrants with certain due process before deporting them to a country where they have no ties. With no explanation from the majority — only the liberal justices in dissent — the judge believed he could still enforce his subsequent ruling, which limited plans to deport a group of violent criminals to the war-torn country of South Sudan. The Trump administration accused him of defying the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices rebuked the judge, with even liberal Justice Elena Kagan agreeing. The Supreme Court's emergency interventions have also left lower judges to grapple with their precedential weight in separate cases. After the high court in May greenlit Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the administration began asserting lower courts still weren't getting the message. The emergency decision led many court watchers to believe the justices are poised to overturn their 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agency leaders from termination without cause. But several judges have since continued to block Trump's firings at other independent agencies, since the precedent still technically remains on the books. The tensions came to a head after a judge reinstated fired CPSC members. The Supreme Court said the earlier case decides how the later case must be interpreted, providing arguably their most succinct guidance yet for how their emergency rulings should be interpreted. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned ruling reads. Liberals object to emergency docket practices The lack of explanation in many of the court's emergency decisions has frustrated court watchers and judges alike, leading critics to call it the 'shadow docket.' Those critics include the Supreme Court's own liberal justices. 'Courts are supposed to explain things. That's what courts do,' Kagan said while speaking at a judicial conference Thursday. Kagan pointed to the court's decision last week greenlighting Trump's mass layoffs at the Education Department. She noted a casual observer might think the president is legally authorized to dismantle the agency, but the government didn't present that argument. Her fellow liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and, particularly, Ketanji Brown Jackson, have made more forceful criticisms. Jackson increasingly accuses her colleagues of threatening the rule of law. She called one recent emergency decision 'hubristic and senseless' and warned another was 'unleashing devastation.' Late last month, Jackson wrote that her colleagues had 'put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy.' But in Wednesday's decision letting the CPSC firings move forward, the trio were united. Kagan accused the majority of having 'effectively expunged' the Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency leaders, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, from its records. 'And it has accomplished those ends with the scantiest of explanations,' she wrote. Kagan noted that the 'sole professed basis' for the stay order was its prior stay order in another case involving Trump's firing of independent agency heads. That decision — which cleared the way for Trump to fire NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris — was also 'minimally (and, as I have previously shown, poorly) explained,' she said. 'So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today's,' Kagan wrote. 'Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under reasoned) orders to cite.'
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
FTC firings take spotlight in Trump's fight to erase independence of agencies
The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed President Donald Trump to fire numerous Democrat-appointed members of independent agencies, but one case still moving through the legal system carries the greatest implications yet for a president's authority to do that. In Slaughter v. Trump, a Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission has vowed to fight what she calls her "illegal firing," setting up a possible scenario in which the case lands before the Supreme Court. The case would pose the most direct question yet to the justices about where they stand on Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the nearly century-old decision regarding a president's power over independent regulatory agencies. John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, told Fox News Digital he thinks the high court is likely to side with the president if and when the case arrives there. "I think it's unlikely that Humphrey's Executor survives the Supreme Court, at least in its current form," Shu said, adding he anticipates the landmark decision will be overturned or "severely narrowed." Humphrey's Executor centered on President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision to fire an FTC commissioner with whom he disagreed politically. The case marked the first instance of the Supreme Court limiting a president's removal power by ruling that Roosevelt overstepped his authority. The court found that presidents could not dismiss FTC commissioners without a reason, such as malfeasance, before their seven-year terms ended, as outlined by Congress in the FTC Act. However, the FTC's functions, which largely center on combating anticompetitive business practices, have expanded in the 90 years since Humphrey's Executor. "The Federal Trade Commission of 1935 is a lot different than the Federal Trade Commission today," Shu said. He noted that today's FTC can open investigations, issue subpoenas, bring lawsuits, impose financial penalties and more. The FTC now has executive, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, Shu said. If the Supreme Court's decision to temporarily allow two labor board members' firings is any indication, the high court stands ready to make the FTC less independent and more accountable to Trump. In a 6-3 order, the Supreme Court cited the "considerable executive power" that the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board have, saying a president "may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf." The order did not mention Humphrey's Executor, but that and other moves indicate the Supreme Court has been chipping away at the 90-year-old ruling and is open to reversing it. The case of Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya gets closest to the heart of Humphrey's Executor. Slaughter enjoyed a short-lived victory when a federal judge in Washington, D.C., found that Trump violated the Constitution and ruled in her favor on July 17. She was able to return to the FTC for a few days, but the Trump administration appealed the decision and, on July 21, the appellate court paused the lower court judge's ruling. Judge Loren AliKhan had said in her summary judgment that Slaughter's case was almost identical to William Humphrey's. "It is not the role of this court to decide the correctness, prudence, or wisdom of the Supreme Court's decisions—even one from ninety years ago," AliKhan, a Biden appointee, wrote. "Whatever the Humphrey's Executor Court may have thought at the time of that decision, this court will not second-guess it now." The lawsuit arose from Trump firing Slaughter and Bedoya, the two Democratic-appointed members of the five-member commission. They alleged that Trump defied Humphrey's Executor by firing them in March without cause in a letter that "nearly word-for-word" mirrored the one Roosevelt sent a century ago. Bedoya has since resigned, but Slaughter is not backing down from a legal fight in which Trump appears to have the upper hand. "Like dozens of other federal agencies, the Federal Trade Commission has been protected from presidential politics for nearly a century," Slaughter said in a statement after she was re-fired. "I'll continue to fight my illegal firing and see this case through, because part of why Congress created independent agencies is to ensure transparency and accountability." Now a three-judge panel comprising two Obama appointees and one Trump appointee is considering a longer-term pause and asked for court filings to be submitted by July 29, meaning the judges could issue their decision soon thereafter.
CNBC
4 hours ago
- CNBC
Trump's trade deals and tariffs are on the chopping block in court. What happens next
President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff powers and recent trade deals could soon run into a legal buzzsaw. A federal appeals court is set to hear oral arguments next week in a high-profile lawsuit challenging Trump's stated authority to effectively slap tariffs at any level on any country at any time, so long as he deems them necessary to address a national emergency. The Trump administration says that that expansive tariff power derives from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The bulk of Trump's biggest tariffs — including his fentanyl-related duties on Canada, Mexico and China, and the worldwide "reciprocal" tariffs he first unveiled in early April — rest on his invocation of that law. The U.S. Court of International Trade struck those tariffs down in late May, ruling that Trump exceeded his authority under IEEPA. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit quickly paused that decision, keeping the tariffs in effect while Trump's legal challenge plays out. The case, known as , is the furthest along of more than half a dozen federal lawsuits challenging Trump's use of the emergency-powers law. It's set for oral argument before the Federal Circuit on Thursday morning. "I think the tariffs are at risk," said Ted Murphy, partner and head of global trade practice at law firm Sidley Austin, in an interview with CNBC. The law has "never been used for this purpose," and it's "being used quite broadly," Murphy said. "So I think there are legitimate questions." IEEPA gives Trump some powers to deal with national emergencies stemming from "any unusual and extraordinary threat" that comes in whole or in large part from outside the U.S. But attorneys representing the handful of small businesses that sued Trump argue that the law does not let him unilaterally impose tariffs. "IEEPA nowhere mentions tariffs, duties, imposts, or taxes, and no other President in the statute's nearly 50-year history has claimed that it authorizes tariffs," they wrote in a court brief this month. Attorneys for Trump and his administration, however, argue that Congress has long empowered presidents to impose tariffs to address key national concerns. They argue that the statute's language authorizing Trump to "regulate … importation" means he can use it to impose tariffs. No matter how the Federal Circuit ultimately rules in , the case appears destined for the Supreme Court, which bears a 6-3 conservative majority and includes three justices appointed by Trump. But some experts still expect that Trump's IEEPA tariffs will be scrapped. "Trump will probably continue to lose in the lower courts, and we believe the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to rule in his favor," U.S. policy analysts from Piper Sandler wrote in a research note Friday morning. The analysts wrote that such a loss would effectively mean the collapse of almost every trade development that Trump has held up as an accomplishment during his first six months in office. "If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, all of the trade deals Trump has reached in recent weeks — and those he will reach in the coming days — are illegal," the analysts wrote. "So are his letters informing countries of their new tariffs, the current 10% minimum, and the reciprocal tariffs he has proposed or threatened," they added. It is technically unclear whether everything Piper Sandler describes is undergirded by IEEPA. For instance, Trump has recently announced only the broad outlines of trade agreements with Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines — and those deals have yet to be finalized. However, Trump in mid-June signed an executive order specifying that he is invoking the emergency-powers law as part of a U.S. trade agreement with the United Kingdom. Trump this month has also sent 25 letters to individual world leaders, dictating the new tariff rates that their countries' U.S. exports will face starting Aug. 1. That is the date when Trump's reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries' imports — which were unveiled in early April and then repeatedly put on pause — are set to turn back on. Trump has said that his letters are tantamount to bilateral trade deals. Those letters do not explicitly reference IEEPA. But their language echoes the same arguments about unfair trade, deficits and national security that Trump invoked during his reciprocal tariff rollout. "The Administration is legally and fairly using tariff powers that have been granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to level the playing field for American workers and safeguard our national security," White House spokesman Kush Desai told CNBC. The White House ignored CNBC's request to confirm that Trump's leader-to-leader letters, and the tariff rates set in his recent spate of trade deals, hinge on IEEPA authority. It has, however, confirmed that the massive 50% tariff Trump set on imports from Brazil did, in fact, rely on IEEPA powers. Strangely, that letter focused less on trade and more on Trump's gripes about Brazil's treatment of its former president, Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial over his role in an alleged coup to overturn his 2022 reelection loss. One day after the federal trade court issued its May decision in , U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras delivered an even broader ruling against the Trump administration in a separate case in Washington, D.C., federal court. The three-judge panel in specifically found that some of the tariffs Trump had imposed were unauthorized by IEEPA. But Contreras, in the case known as , ruled that the law itself does not allow a president to take any unilateral tariff actions. The government appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which paused a preliminary injunction that Contreras had issued. Oral arguments in the case are set for Sept. 30. Two other federal lawsuits challenging the tariffs — one from the state of California, and one filed in Montana federal court by members of the indigenous Blackfeet nation — are set for separate oral arguments on Sept. 17 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At least three more pending cases before the Court of International Trade have been stayed until a final decision is returned in according to the Congressional Research Service.
