John Burt & a. v. Speaker of the House of Representatives, 243 A.3d 609

On January 2, 2019 the New Hampshire House amended House Rule 63 to bar carrying or possession of any deadly weapon in the House Chamber, anterooms, cloakrooms, and gallery, except for law enforcement on duty.
Previously House practice permitted members to carry weapons so long as they were not displayed.
Five legislators, including John Burt, sued in superior court alleging Rule 63 violates Part I, Article 2-a of the New Hampshire Constitution (right to keep and bear arms).
The Speaker moved to dismiss, arguing the claim presented a nonjusticiable political question because each legislative chamber has authority to settle its own rules; the superior court granted dismissal.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding the claim is justiciable because courts must adjudicate alleged violations of constitutional (mandatory) provisions even when an internal legislative rule is implicated, and remanded for further proceedings on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a challenge to House Rule 63 is a nonjusticiable political question	Burt: Courts can review Rule 63 because it allegedly violates a fundamental constitutional right (Art. 2-a); judicial review protects constitutional limits on other branches	Speaker: Rulemaking authority of each legislative chamber is committed by the Constitution; courts should not intrude on internal legislative rules	The challenge is justiciable. Courts may adjudicate alleged violations of mandatory constitutional provisions even where internal rulemaking is involved.
Whether State v. LaFrance bars judicial review of weapons restrictions in legislative chambers	Burt: LaFrance did not decide limits on individual constitutional rights in legislative chambers and is not controlling here	Speaker: LaFrance suggests courts should not tell other branches who may carry guns in their chambers	LaFrance is distinguishable and its language relied on by Speaker is dicta; it does not preclude judicial review of constitutional rights claims against House rules.

Hughes v. Speaker, N.H. House of Representatives, 152 N.H. 276 (2005) (articulates political-question/justiciability framework and limits on reviewing legislative procedure unless constitutional mandate is implicated)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (framework for political-question doctrine and judicial review limits)
Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124 (2005) (courts must intervene where a mandatory constitutional provision is alleged to have been violated)
State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171 (1983) (invalidated statute encroaching on judicial internal procedures; language about other branches’ internal rules treated as dicta here)
United States v. Smith, 286 U.S. 6 (1932) (Congress cannot adopt rules that ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights)
Des Moines Register v. Dwyer, 542 N.W.2d 491 (Iowa 1996) (state court may review legislative rules for constitutionality as to individual rights)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right but is not absolute; restrictions in 'sensitive places' noted)