New Hampshire judiciary faces scrutiny over no-bid contract with Republican operative

The New Hampshire Judicial Branch hired Republican operative Mike Karoutas under a contract that was not publicly bid or publicly announced, according to a New England Public Media investigation published July 1, 2026.

The report also said the judiciary has argued that it is not subject to the same transparency requirements that govern many other state and local government bodies. That position places the arrangement at the center of questions about how New Hampshire’s courts disclose and procure services using public funds.

What the investigation reported

New England Public Media reported that Karoutas was hired by the New Hampshire Judicial Branch. The report characterized him as a prominent Republican operative and said the contract was obtained without public bidding and without public notification of the hiring.

The available material does not identify the contract’s dollar value, term, scope of work or funding source. It also does not establish whether the contract violated a specific state statute. Those details are important to evaluating the arrangement, but they were not included in the retrieved reporting or the other approved materials.

The reporting concerns the Judicial Branch as a state institution. The available information does not establish that the New Hampshire Supreme Court itself approved the contract, nor does it identify the specific official or office that made the contracting decision.

Why the transparency dispute matters

Government contracting rules are intended to make public spending more visible and to give officials, journalists and residents a way to examine how services are selected and paid for. A contract made without public bidding or notification can therefore raise questions about procurement and disclosure even when the available evidence does not show that a law was broken.

The issue carries an additional accountability question because courts oversee disputes involving public institutions and the interpretation of law. The Judicial Branch’s position that it is not covered by the same transparency rules as most state and local bodies means the public may be evaluating the contract under a different disclosure standard than the one applied to many other government entities.

That does not, by itself, resolve whether the arrangement was lawful or appropriate. It does mean the dispute is about more than the identity of the contractor. It also concerns which rules apply to the branch responsible for administering justice and how residents can obtain information about its use of public money.

What remains unknown

The approved source material does not provide the contract itself or describe the work Karoutas was expected to perform. It does not state how long the agreement lasts, how much it costs, where the money came from or whether competing candidates were considered outside a formal public-bidding process.

The Judicial Branch’s full response was not retrieved. The available material also does not show a pending legal challenge, a legislative investigation or a completed audit of the contract. As a result, the reported procurement facts should not be treated as a final finding of misconduct or illegality.

Possible oversight path

The New Hampshire Office of Legislative Budget Assistant provides the state’s official legislative audit and fiscal-investigation framework. Its public information lists the Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee and an Aug. 21, 2026, meeting, which could provide a venue for follow-up oversight. The available record does not say that the committee has opened a review of the Karoutas contract or that the matter is on its agenda.

The New Hampshire secretary of state’s official news page provides government notices and public-records pathways. The retrieved page did not show a separate state response to the Judicial Branch contract story.

For now, the central verified development is the reported hiring itself and the absence of public bidding and notification described by New England Public Media. Determining the contract’s cost, purpose, authority and legal status would require records and responses that were not available in the approved source material.