Governor Kelly Ayotte has nominated Daniel E. Will to serve on the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The Executive Council will vote on this nomination in the coming weeks. NHFC urges all members to contact the Executive Council immediately and express opposition to this nomination.
Why NHFC Opposes This Nomination
Daniel Will, as New Hampshire’s Solicitor General, was the leading architect of a dangerous legal theory that constitutional rights can be “suspended” during a state of emergency. In the Binford v. Sununu case, Will argued on behalf of the State that:
“During a state of emergency, executives are granted broad latitude to suspend civil liberties.”
The court accepted Will’s arguments, citing the Smith v. Avino case that Will asked the court to apply, which states that “fundamental rights such as the right of travel and free speech may be temporarily limited or suspended” during emergencies.
When Will supported the actions to shut down people’s businesses and by extension, shut down and destroy their livelihoods, he showed he was not capable of being in government, much less on the bench of the highest court in the state.
Violations of the NH Constitution
Will’s legal arguments directly contradict the foundational principles of the New Hampshire Constitution, Part First – Bill of Rights:
- [Art.] 2. Natural Rights: “All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property…”
- [Art.] 4. Rights of Conscience Unalienable: “Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them.”
The New Hampshire Constitution explicitly states that certain rights are unalienable – they cannot be surrendered, suspended, or taken away. Will’s argument that civil liberties can be suspended during emergencies is fundamentally incompatible with these constitutional principles.
Additional Concerns
- No Second Amendment Record: Will has no documented record on Second Amendment issues, leaving his views on firearms rights unknown.
- Executive Overreach: The majority of Will’s work involved defending expansive executive emergency powers, arguing courts should defer to executive judgment on emergency measures.
- Bipartisan Concern: In April 2021, a bipartisan majority of the New Hampshire House called Will’s legal theory “disturbing” and passed HB440 specifically to rule out his interpretation under New Hampshire state law.
TAKE ACTION – CONTACT THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Key Points for Your Message:
- Will argued civil liberties can be “suspended” during emergencies
- This violates Articles 1-5 of the NH Constitution’s Bill of Rights
- He defended government actions that destroyed businesses and livelihoods
- A bipartisan House majority found his legal theory “disturbing”
- He has no record on Second Amendment issues
- He is unfit for the state’s highest court
The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition will track the Executive Council’s votes on this nomination. This vote will be part of our evaluation of elected officials.
Please forward this alert to fellow gun owners, liberty-minded citizens, and anyone who values constitutional rights. The Executive Council must hear from the people before they vote.
