FAMILY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Jordan Scott
In Matter of Lila B., 568 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that the State must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that shaving a mental-health detainee’s head is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. (Id. at 5–6). An individual detained at Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API) was awaiting mental health commitment evaluation when staff realized she had a severe head lice infestation. (Id. at 3). Staff determined her head needed to be shaved before commitment, but the detainee opposed any touching of her head as a violation of her religious beliefs. (Id.). A superior court hearing occurred where the State argued that permethrin shampoo and isolation would be insufficient to protect employees and other detainees from lice infestation, and shaving her head was the least restrictive alternative. (Id. at 3–4). The superior court authorized the involuntary head shaving. (Id. at 4). Affirming the public interest exception to mootness, the Supreme Court vacated the order authorizing the involuntary head shaving. (Id. at 8). The Court reasoned that involuntary head-shaving intrudes upon fundamental liberty and privacy rights, including the right to control appearance and medical treatment decisions. (Id. at 6). Therefore, the “clear and convincing evidence” standard applies to the State’s burden. (Id.). The Court then determined that the State failed to show clearly and convincingly that permethrin treatment combined with a head covering or reasonable isolation would have been ineffective, especially since the authorized detention was only 72 hours. (Id. at 7–8).
