The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that a presiding officer's failure to recuse himself from an administrative proceeding violated due process, leading the court to vacate the Fish and Game Department's revocation of a volunteer hunter education instructor's certification.
In *Petition of Dean* (N.H. 2025), the court addressed the case of Penny S. Dean, who represented herself in challenging the department's decision to revoke her hunter education volunteer instructor certification. Chief Justice MacDonald wrote the opinion for the court, which was submitted on May 20, 2025, and issued on Sept. 19, 2025.
The case arose from events that occurred during a Hunter Education Field Day at the Winnipesaukee Sportsmen's Club on Sept. 18, 2022. According to the record, Dean "openly disagreed with" a conservation officer's presentation to students regarding RSA 644:13, which prohibits discharging a firearm within 300 feet of a building.
On Jan. 5, 2023, the Fish and Game Department notified Dean by letter signed by its executive director that her actions during the field day violated the department's Hunter Education Policy and Procedures. The letter specifically cited the manner in which Dean challenged the conservation officer's explanation during the educational presentation.
The department initiated administrative proceedings to revoke Dean's volunteer instructor certification based on these alleged violations. During the adjudicatory proceeding, questions arose about whether the presiding officer should recuse himself from the case, but the officer declined to do so.
Dean challenged the department's decision through the administrative appeals process and ultimately petitioned the New Hampshire Supreme Court for review. Representing herself throughout the proceedings, Dean argued that the presiding officer's failure to recuse himself violated her right to due process.
The state defended the department's actions through the Attorney General's office, with Attorney General John M. Formella, Solicitor General Anthony J. Galdieri, and Assistant Attorney General Mark L. Lucas representing the Fish and Game Department.
The Supreme Court agreed with Dean's challenge, concluding that the presiding officer erred by declining to recuse himself from the adjudicatory proceeding. The court found that this failure to recuse created a due process violation that required vacating the department's decision.
"Because we conclude that the presiding officer in the adjudicatory proceeding erred by declining to recuse himself, we vacate and remand," Chief Justice MacDonald wrote in the opinion.
The court's decision highlights the importance of judicial neutrality and the appearance of fairness in administrative proceedings. When presiding officers have potential conflicts of interest or other circumstances that could call their impartiality into question, they must recuse themselves to protect the integrity of the process and ensure due process rights are preserved.
This case represents a victory for Dean, who successfully navigated the complex administrative and judicial appeals process without legal representation. Her success demonstrates that self-represented parties can effectively challenge government actions when procedural violations occur, even in specialized areas like fish and game regulations.
The ruling also underscores the New Hampshire Supreme Court's commitment to ensuring that administrative agencies follow proper procedures when taking disciplinary actions against licensed or certified individuals. The court's willingness to vacate the department's decision sends a clear message that due process requirements apply equally in administrative proceedings.
The Fish and Game Department will now need to conduct new proceedings on remand, presumably with a different presiding officer who does not have any conflicts or other issues that would require recusal. Dean's instructor certification status will depend on the outcome of these new proceedings.
The case serves as a reminder to state agencies that they must carefully consider recusal issues in administrative proceedings and err on the side of caution when questions about a presiding officer's impartiality arise. Failure to address such concerns can result in costly appeals and the need to restart proceedings.
For volunteer instructors and other individuals subject to state licensing or certification requirements, the decision reinforces that they have meaningful due process rights even in administrative settings. When agencies fail to follow proper procedures, courts will intervene to protect these constitutional guarantees.
The opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 and formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. The court's decision provides important precedent for future cases involving administrative due process and recusal requirements in New Hampshire.