Judicial Retirement Plan v. SEC. of State
161 N.H. 49
| N.H. | 2010Background
- Judicial Plan and NHRS are defined-benefit pension trusts that manage state funds under RSA chs. 100-C and 100-A, funded by contributions and investment income.
- Article 36-a (1984) requires retirement assets to be held in trust for exclusive retirement benefits and not diverted for other purposes.
- Sudan Divestment Act (RSA ch. 100-D) enacted in 2008 to restrict investments in scrutinized Sudan-related companies, with engagement and divestment duties.
- Act imposes identification of scrutinized companies, engagement and notification, and phased divestment timelines (9 months to 15 months) with a safety valve for cost limits.
- The Judicial Plan and NHRS sought to block enforcement as unconstitutional; trial court granted injunction; NHRS intervened; Supreme Court reversed and remanded to address fiduciary-duty implications; opinion analyzes Article 36-a's meaning and historical context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 36-a bars the Sudan Divestment Act. | Judicial Plan/NHRS argue Act conflicts with exclusive-purpose trust. | State contends Act aligns with exclusive-purpose and trustees’ duties. | Yes, constitutional; Act does not violate Article 36-a on its face. |
Key Cases Cited
- Akins v. Sec'y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 904 A.2d 702 (2006) (statutory interpretation and presumption of constitutionality guidance)
- Linehan v. Rockingham County Comm'rs, 151 N.H. 276, 855 A.2d 1271 (2004) (de novo review of constitutional interpretation)
- Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 876 A.2d 768 (2005) (limits on constitutional challenges to statutes)
- Warsburton v. Thomas, 136 N.H. 383, 616 A.2d 495 (1992) (look to purpose and surrounding circumstances in constitutional interpretation)
- Morin (Attorney General v. Morin), 93 N.H. 40, 35 A.2d 513 (1943) (interpretation of constitutional amendments based on surrounding circumstances)
- Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662, 9 S. Ct. 651, 32 L. Ed. 1060 (1889) (constitutional interpretation with voters’ understanding of ballot language)