New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald stepped down effective immediately after a judicial ethics investigation found he bypassed hiring rules to engineer a layoff-and-rehire scheme that let a senior aide pocket nearly $50,000 in accrued benefits.
Governor Kelly Ayotte accepted MacDonald's resignation on September 15, 2026, the same day the state's Judicial Conduct Committee published its summary report, a stipulation and agreement, and MacDonald's own responses to the committee's questions. In the stipulation, MacDonald admitted to violating three provisions of New Hampshire's Code of Judicial Conduct: failing to avoid the appearance of impropriety, bypassing Judicial Branch hiring rules to extend a position to one person without the process required of every other employee, and failing to exercise his administrative appointment power impartially.
The resignation caps a ten-month investigation that began in November 2025 and escalated to a formal complaint by March 2026. At its center sits a personnel maneuver so brazen it reads less like an administrative misstep and more like a blueprint for gaming the system, carried out by the one official New Hampshire residents count on to model the rule of law.
The chain of events started in February 2025, when Dianne Martin was removed from her position as Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts following an internal investigation into her job performance. MacDonald was aware of that investigation, WMUR reported.
After her removal, Martin emailed MacDonald about her termination. The Judicial Conduct Committee's findings describe what happened next: MacDonald allegedly reacted with anger and frustration, slamming doors and using profanity toward other justices on the court.
On April 1, 2025, Martin was told her position had been eliminated and she was officially laid off. That layoff triggered a payout of close to $50,000 in unused sick time, vacation time, and benefits.
Then, just 48 hours later, Martin was rehired, this time as general counsel to the Office of Bar Admissions. It was the same position she had been offered at the time of her termination but had declined. A whistleblower told investigators the layoff-and-rehire plan was MacDonald's idea.
MacDonald disputed that characterization. In written responses to the committee's questions, he said the decisions to lay off and rehire Martin were made collectively by three then-sitting associate justices and himself, on the advice of counsel. He did not name the justices. The Judicial Branch noted that the court's current associate justices were not members of the panel that approved the agreement with MacDonald.
The stipulation MacDonald signed is blunt. He conceded that his actions constituted favoritism and failed to promote public confidence in the judiciary's impartiality, Just The News reported. Three separate provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct fell in a single agreement, a remarkable admission from the state's highest-ranking judge.
In a written statement, MacDonald framed his departure as a sacrifice for the institution, not a concession of wrongdoing beyond what the stipulation already covers:
"To maintain the integrity of the judicial branch and to avoid the protracted and disruptive spectacle a public hearing would cause to the judicial branch and its dedicated employees, I have agreed to resign my position."
He added that he hoped the judicial branch could "move forward without further distraction and do the critical work for the citizens of New Hampshire." In a separate passage, he said he took "full responsibility for my shortcomings."
The committee also asked MacDonald about rumors that he was having an affair with Martin. He denied it, stating the claim was false "and has caused great damage to me." He said "emphatically" that his relationship with Martin "has always been professional." The committee's published findings do not resolve that question one way or the other.
Judicial accountability has drawn national attention in recent years, from contentious confirmation hearings in Washington to state-level ethics disputes. What sets the MacDonald case apart is that the chief justice did not merely face allegations, he signed a document admitting the violations.
Governor Ayotte did not hold back. In a written statement released the same day, she said:
"I am extremely disappointed to learn today of the former Chief Justice's violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct, and I received his resignation this morning."
Ayotte added a broader point about institutional trust:
"It is essential that the Judicial Branch maintain the public's trust in its mission to impartially adjudicate matters brought in front of the courts."
Her statement did not address the process or timeline for naming a successor. New Hampshire's governor holds the power to nominate Supreme Court justices, but the specific steps and any advisory role for the legislature were not detailed in the available reporting.
Courts across the country have faced scrutiny over how judges wield administrative power, a concern that extends from federal bench controversies down to state-level judiciaries. MacDonald's case underscores how much damage a single official can do when procedural guardrails are ignored.
MacDonald had been absent from the court well before his resignation. Judicial Branch spokesman David Sakowich confirmed that MacDonald went on medical leave starting July 24, 2026. During that stretch, the court's four associate justices divided the chief justice's administrative duties among themselves.
Sakowich said in a written statement:
"The Judicial Branch remains focused on carrying out its responsibilities to the public and ensuring that the work of the courts continues without interruption."
The court's next oral arguments are scheduled for September 22. No public explanation was given for the nature of MacDonald's medical leave.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has been in the national spotlight before. Earlier this year, transgender athletes dropped a lawsuit challenging New Hampshire's girls' sports protections after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state bans. That case drew attention to how state courts and legislatures interact, a dynamic now complicated by the vacancy at the top of New Hampshire's judiciary.
Several significant gaps remain. The Judicial Conduct Committee's published materials do not specify what job performance issues triggered the original internal investigation of Martin. The identity of the whistleblower who blamed MacDonald for the layoff-and-rehire scheme has not been disclosed.
The committee also asked MacDonald about incidents in which he allegedly yelled at other justices, but his responses on that point, and the committee's conclusions, are not detailed in the published documents. And the question of whether the stipulation and agreement carried any sanctions beyond MacDonald's resignation remains unanswered.
Meanwhile, the broader picture of the New Hampshire Judicial Branch's internal operations is still developing. WMUR previously reported on a separate review of the judicial branch by the state Attorney General's office, which began around November 2025, the same month the ethics investigation into MacDonald opened. The outcome of that review has not been publicly disclosed.
High-profile Supreme Court decisions regularly remind Americans how much rides on the integrity of judges at every level. When the person at the top of a state's judiciary admits to rigging personnel decisions for a favored employee, the damage runs deeper than one resignation letter.
MacDonald wrote that he accepts "responsibility and accountability" for his conduct. Accountability arrived. Whether it arrived in full, or whether the stipulation let him exit on his own terms before the public heard the whole story, is a question New Hampshire taxpayers deserve answered.