The New Hampshire Supreme Court announced Friday that Chief Justice Gordon J. MacDonald is taking a medical leave of absence effective immediately. The court’s brief statement offered no explanation for the leave and provided no information about who will manage the court’s administrative duties during his absence.
Short notice, few answers
The announcement, described by court officials in minimal terms, arrived without the kind of detail families and lawyers expect when the state’s top jurist steps away. The court did not disclose the expected length of the leave, whether it is voluntary or recommended by medical personnel, nor who will act in the chief justice’s stead.
Local reporters sought clarification from the court’s spokesman; outlets covering the story noted they had reached out for additional information. At the time of publication, the court had not provided further comment.
Background: past scrutiny of MacDonald and court administration
The timing is noteworthy because MacDonald has not been insulated from scrutiny in recent months. One episode involved former Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, who said he told her she could meet with then-Gov. Chris Sununu in June 2024 during an investigation into her husband. MacDonald denied making that suggestion to her. Hantz Marconi later pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge related to seeking special favors, was fined and returned to work until her retirement.
Another public controversy centered on reporting by New Hampshire Public Radio about how a colleague, Dianne Martin, was paid roughly $50,000 in benefits after a brief layoff before being rehired into another judicial-branch position. That matter drew an inquiry from Attorney General John Formella.
“that the series of events and transactions examined do not warrant further review or investigation by DOJ as, at this time, there is no reasonable suspicion to believe that further investigation would uncover actionable criminal conduct.”
Formella’s written determination closed the DOJ’s review while noting that some human resources practices in the sequence of events raised concerns, and that the Justice Department lacks oversight authority over internal judicial-branch personnel decisions.
What we know — and what we don’t
Here’s what the public record confirms so far:
- MacDonald is on immediate medical leave. The court announced the leave but did not provide medical details.
- No successor named publicly. The court has not identified an acting chief justice or interim administrative lead.
- MacDonald faced prior scrutiny. Investigations and reporting have previously raised questions about court practices and communications involving justices.
Why leadership clarity matters
The chief justice does more than preside over arguments and sign opinions; the office directs administrative functions that affect court staffing, case management and the judicial branch’s interaction with other state agencies. Extended uncertainty about who is running the administrative side could complicate scheduling, budget items, personnel matters and the orderly handling of high-profile appeals.
Lawyers and litigants watch for notices from the court about oral-argument calendars, emergency motions and procedural directives. If the leave extends, the court will need to signal who holds authority to make those calls.
What to expect next
Officials can address immediate concerns by releasing:
- A statement naming an acting chief justice or administrative officer;
- An estimate of the leave’s expected duration, when appropriate; and
- Reassurances about continuity for pending cases and court operations.
Reporters are already seeking comment from the court and from other branches of government. The attorney general’s earlier review into administrative matters at the court offers some context but does not bear on the medical-leave decision itself.
On the record
This is a developing story. NEXO RADAR has contacted the New Hampshire Supreme Court for additional comment and will publish updates as officials release information. For now, the abruptness of the announcement leaves the state’s top judicial office in a holding pattern — and raises practical questions that New Hampshire’s lawyers and citizens will want answered sooner rather than later.
