New Hampshire’s Supreme Court is weighing whether the state could change its Youth Development Center settlement process after former residents had elected to participate. At October 14 arguments, claimants challenged the attorney general’s new ability to reject an administrator’s award, according to the Bulletin’s account and InDepthNH’s reporting. The dispute concerns the rules for resolving claims, not a new determination of compensation for an individual survivor.
The appeal, Andrew Foley and others v. State of New Hampshire and others, follows the dismissal of a challenge to 2025 amendments. The state’s brief, reproduced in a public legal archive, describes the earlier process as binding on the state when a claimant accepted an award. The amended process gives both sides the ability to decline it.
The competing arguments
Attorney Daniel Deane argued that filing claims and setting aside litigation accepted a state offer whose essential terms could not later be rewritten. The Bulletin reported that he emphasized the finality of awards, while InDepthNH described his contention that more than 1,900 people had accepted the offer before the rules changed. Those are the claimants’ arguments, not findings by the justices.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Mary Triick disputed that the statute guaranteed an unchangeable process. The state’s filing argues that lawmakers did not unmistakably promise vested rights in particular procedures. As the Bulletin recounts, Triick also pointed to claimants’ ability to leave the process rather than accept an award. The legal question is whether that flexibility defeats the contractual protection the claimants assert.
What the statute now requires
The current governing law requires both the claimant and the attorney general’s designee to affirmatively accept the administrator’s decision within the prescribed period. Otherwise, the claim is deemed withdrawn and the claimant retains the right to pursue it in court or another forum. The statute separately describes filing a claim as a written agreement to submit it to arbitration.
The same law places the administrator in the executive branch, with appointment by the governor and consent of the Executive Council. It permits removal at the governor’s pleasure but says the governor has no authority to review the administrator’s decisions. Those provisions distinguish employment oversight from approval of particular settlements.
The statutory deadline for filing fund claims was June 30, 2025. The appeal is not an announcement of a new application period. The law also preserves a claimant’s opportunity to consult counsel before deciding whether to participate, an important distinction from an automatic compensation award.
The October 19 report describes an appeal, not a Supreme Court victory. The disagreement illustrated by the state’s brief is consequential for claimants and taxpayers: preserving access to litigation is not the same proposition as preserving the settlement procedure that existed when someone entered the fund.
