Main Menu

Department of Education & Early Development v. Alexander

EDUCATION LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Teddy Brodsky

In State, Department of Education and Early Development v. Alexander, 566 P.3d 268 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that statutes authorizing correspondence study programs and allotments for educational expenses were not facially unconstitutional. (Id. at 271). Alaska law allows school districts to operate correspondence study programs and provides public funds for educational materials to meet the students’ needs. (Id. at 272). Alexander and three other parents of public-school students sued the Department of Education and Early Development, challenging the constitutionality of these statutes. (Id. at 273). Alexander argued that the statutes violated Article VII, Section 1, of the Alaska Constitution, which prohibits using public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private institution. (Id. at 274). The superior court agreed, granting Alexander’s motion for summary judgment and deeming the statutes facially unconstitutional. (Id. at 275). The Supreme Court of Alaska reversed, concluding that the statutes at issue permit constitutionally permissible uses of funds. (Id. at 277). The Court reasoned that a statute will not be struck down on its face unless it lacks a plainly legitimate sweep. (Id. at 277). Because the statutes here have numerous constitutionally valid applications—such as using funds to purchase educational materials or supplies from private businesses—the statutes do not violate the constitution in all their applications. (Id. at 283). The Court declined to decide whether the statutes were unconstitutional as applied because the issue was not briefed and the school districts approving the allegedly unconstitutional uses of funds were not parties to the litigation. (Id. at 286). Therefore, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that the correspondence study and allotment statutes at issue are not facially unconstitutional and remanded for further proceedings to address any potential as-applied challenges. (Id. at 287).

Department of Education & Early Development v. Alexander

EDUCATION LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Teddy Brodsky

In State, Department of Education and Early Development v. Alexander, 566 P.3d 268 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that statutes authorizing correspondence study programs and allotments for educational expenses were not facially unconstitutional. (Id. at 271). Alaska law allows school districts to operate correspondence study programs and provides public funds for educational materials to meet the students’ needs. (Id. at 272). Alexander and three other parents of public-school students sued the Department of Education and Early Development, challenging the constitutionality of these statutes. (Id. at 273). Alexander argued that the statutes violated Article VII, Section 1, of the Alaska Constitution, which prohibits using public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private institution. (Id. at 274). The superior court agreed, granting Alexander’s motion for summary judgment and deeming the statutes facially unconstitutional. (Id. at 275). The Supreme Court of Alaska reversed, concluding that the statutes at issue permit constitutionally permissible uses of funds. (Id. at 277). The Court reasoned that a statute will not be struck down on its face unless it lacks a plainly legitimate sweep. (Id. at 277). Because the statutes here have numerous constitutionally valid applications—such as using funds to purchase educational materials or supplies from private businesses—the statutes do not violate the constitution in all their applications. (Id. at 283). The Court declined to decide whether the statutes were unconstitutional as applied because the issue was not briefed and the school districts approving the allegedly unconstitutional uses of funds were not parties to the litigation. (Id. at 286). Therefore, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that the correspondence study and allotment statutes at issue are not facially unconstitutional and remanded for further proceedings to address any potential as-applied challenges. (Id. at 287).