CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Katharine Roberts
In Valoaga v. State, Department of Corrections, 563 P.3d 42 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that the Department of Corrections did not violate a pretrial inmate’s right to due process by using the preponderance of the evidence standard, rather than the clear and convincing standard, in prison disciplinary proceedings against the inmate for failing to provide a timely urine sample. (Id. at 46–48). In April 2022, Defendant Valoaga failed to provide a urine sample for random drug testing within the Department of Correction’s two-hour policy. (Id. at 44). Valoaga tried to provide the sample multiple times throughout the two-hour period but was having trouble urinating. (Id.). Because failure to provide a sample results in discipline, a staff member told Valoaga that he would receive an infraction. (Id.). Later that month, a prison disciplinary tribunal found Valoaga guilty for failing to provide the urine specimen. (Id.). The tribunal used the preponderance of the evidence standard, which is the burden of proof that Department of Corrections regulations prescribes for prisoner disciplinary hearings. (Id.). Valoaga argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in McGinnis v. Stevens, 543 P.2d 1221 (Alaska 1975) required the Department of Corrections to use a clear and convincing standards in disciplinary hearings, not a preponderance of the evidence standard, and as such, the prison violated his due process rights. (Id. at 45). The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the prison tribunal and the lower courts, holding that a clear and convincing evidence standard is not constitutionally required in this context, and that using a preponderance of the evidence standard did not violate Valoaga’s due process rights. (Id. at 46). The Court reasoned that, while McGinnis established certain minimum due process protections for prison disciplinary proceedings under the Alaska Constitution, the Court expressly rejected that the Constitution required proof beyond a reasonable doubt in such proceedings, and that a lower standard would suffice. (Id.). Additionally, applying the balancing test prescribed by Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), the Court found that due process under the Alaska Constitution does not require prison disciplinary decisions to be made by clear and convincing evidence. (Id. at 47–48). Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court’s decision and held that the Department of Corrections did not violate Valoaga’s due process rights by using a preponderance of the evidence standard in his disciplinary hearing.
