CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Drew Loughlin
In Smith v. Municipality of Anchorage, 568 P.3d 367 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska remanded the superior court’s decision not to rule on whether a “campsite abatement” was proper, holding that the superior court could hear that constitutional issue within its jurisdiction. (Id. at 368). The Anchorage Municipal Code identifies “prohibited campsites” as public nuisances and allows the municipality to remove them through an abatement procedure, including the right to appeal to the superior court. (Id.). In 2022, Anchorage posted a “Notice of Zone Campsite” in Davis Park, and ten days later, six individuals filed an appeal in superior court, arguing that the decision violated due process and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. (Id. at 369). The superior court decided that it had appellate jurisdiction only to the legal sufficiency of the notice and dismissed the constitutional issues. (Id.). However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the superior court’s reading of the term “final administrative decision” within the AMC 15.20.020: the public nuisance statute. (Id. at 371). Specifically, the Court held that this term indicated the date from which the 30-day appeal period began, but had no impact on the subject matter of the appeal someone could file during that period. (Id.). The Court then determined that the legislative history of AMC 15.20.020 supported the right to a substantive appeal because during a 2010 amendment the Assembly seemed to endorse a prior substantive due process ruling from superior court. (Id. at 373). Finally, the Court noted that if the superior court felt that the record was insufficient for meaningful appellate review it could order a supplemented record or declare a trial de novo. (Id. at 376). As a result, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s superior court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. (Id.).
