Main Menu

Dunleavy v. Alaska Legislative Council

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Emma Giusto

In Dunleavy v. Alaska Legislative Council, 498 P.3d 608 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that Alaska Statute § 39.05.080(3) and House Bill 309, both of which provided that legislative inaction on the Governor’s appointments was akin to a rejection, were unconstitutional. (Id. at 612–13). In 2020, Governor Dunleavy provided over 90 appointees for legislative confirmation. (Id. at 611). When the pandemic began and the legislature was not able to reliably meet, it passed House Bill 309, which extended the time for the legislature to act on appointments, making nonaction not equivalent to a rejection until the earlier of January 18, 2021, or the expiration of the public health emergency. (Id.). After the end of the public health emergency the legislature did not act, making the nonaction equivalent to a rejection. (Id.). Governor Dunleavy stated he was using his power under the recess appointment clause to allow his appointees to continue to serve and the Legislative Council filed a complaint alleging the governor had violated the Alaska Constitution. (Id. at 611–12). The superior court held that Alaska Statute § 39.05.080(3) and House Bill 309 were constitutional—therefore the appointments had been rejected by the legislature and the recess appointment clause could not apply. (Id. at 612). In reversing the superior court, the supreme court reasoned that, by defining inaction as akin to a rejection, Alaska Statute § 39.05.080(3) and House Bill 309 nullify the Alaska Constitution’s joint session vote requirement, thereby rendering them unconstitutional. (Id. at 613). The court further reasoned that this interpretation is supported both by the plain language of the Alaska Constitution and by the delegates’ intention as shown through constitutional history. (Id. at 613–15). Reversing the superior court, the supreme court held that Alaska Statute § 39.05.080(3) and House Bill 309, both of which provided that legislative inaction on the Governor’s appointments was akin to a rejection, were unconstitutional as consideration of appointees must occur by a joint session vote. (Id. at 610–12).

Dunleavy v. Alaska Legislative Council

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Emma Giusto

In Dunleavy v. Alaska Legislative Council, 498 P.3d 608 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that Alaska Statute § 39.05.080(3) and House Bill 309, both of which provided that legislative inaction on the Governor’s appointments was akin to a rejection, were unconstitutional. (Id. at 612–13). In 2020, Governor Dunleavy provided over 90 appointees for legislative confirmation. (Id. at 611). When the pandemic began and the legislature was not able to reliably meet, it passed House Bill 309, which extended the time for the legislature to act on appointments, making nonaction not equivalent to a rejection until the earlier of January 18, 2021, or the expiration of the public health emergency. (Id.). After the end of the public health emergency the legislature did not act, making the nonaction equivalent to a rejection. (Id.). Governor Dunleavy stated he was using his power under the recess appointment clause to allow his appointees to continue to serve and the Legislative Council filed a complaint alleging the governor had violated the Alaska Constitution. (Id. at 611–12). The superior court held that Alaska Statute § 39.05.080(3) and House Bill 309 were constitutional—therefore the appointments had been rejected by the legislature and the recess appointment clause could not apply. (Id. at 612). In reversing the superior court, the supreme court reasoned that, by defining inaction as akin to a rejection, Alaska Statute § 39.05.080(3) and House Bill 309 nullify the Alaska Constitution’s joint session vote requirement, thereby rendering them unconstitutional. (Id. at 613). The court further reasoned that this interpretation is supported both by the plain language of the Alaska Constitution and by the delegates’ intention as shown through constitutional history. (Id. at 613–15). Reversing the superior court, the supreme court held that Alaska Statute § 39.05.080(3) and House Bill 309, both of which provided that legislative inaction on the Governor’s appointments was akin to a rejection, were unconstitutional as consideration of appointees must occur by a joint session vote. (Id. at 610–12).