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 Continue Reading »
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Kate Goldberg In Antenor v. State, Department of Corrections, the supreme court held that denying an inmate access to a computer programing book based on security reasons did not violate the Alaska Constitution’s free speech provision or the constitutional right to reformation. In 2017, inmate Antenor attempted to order a computer programming book Continue Reading »
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Daisy Gray In Barnebey v. Department of Administration, Division of Motor Vehicles, the supreme court held that a Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing officer did not violate Barnebey’s due process rights by revoking his driver’s license because of his breath test results without considering margin of error evidence. A state trooper stopped Barnebey Continue Reading »
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Macklin Willigan Forrer v. State In Forrer v. State, 471 P.3d 569 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that a debt-creating statute was unconstitutional because (1) subject-to-appropriations bonds are “debt” for purposes of Article IX, section 8 of the Alaska Constitution—and thus require Alaska voters’ authorization—and (2) the legislative scheme authorizing the Continue Reading »
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Jacob Keohane Dalton v. State In Dalton v. State, 477 P.3d 650 (Alaska App. Ct. 2020), the court of appeals held that prohibiting a paroled felon from accessing the internet without his probation officer’s permission is an undue restriction on liberty. (Id. at 656). In 2017, Kevin Dalton sexually assaulted his sleeping Continue Reading »
In Amy S. v. State,[1] the supreme court held that when a party’s due process rights are violated, a failure by that party to make a plausible claim of prejudice resulting from that violation requires a finding of harmless error. The Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children’s Services (OCS) filed an emergency Continue Reading »
In Club SinRock, LLC v. Municipality of Anchorage,[1] the supreme court held that a municipal closing-hours restriction applies to adult cabarets, but, under strict scrutiny, violates the Alaska Constitution’s free speech clause. Although a municipal ordinance required adult-oriented establishments to be closed between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., Club SinRock, an adult cabaret featuring nude Continue Reading »
In Ebli v. State,[1] the supreme court affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss an incarcerated individual’s complaint that a restriction placed on his visitation rights by the Department of Corrections (DOC) violated his constitutional right to rehabilitation. While incarcerated, Keilan Ebli began a romantic relationship with a DOC substance abuse counselor, which continued even Continue Reading »
In Pohland v. State,[1] the court of appeals held the general search of an individual’s laptop to be unconstitutional when conducted under a warrant authorizing the search of another individual’s digital records related to that second individual’s suspected crimes. Alaska state troopers investigating McRoberts obtained a search warrant authorizing search and seizure of all digital Continue Reading »
In State v. Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest,[1] the Alaska Supreme Court held that AS 47.07.068 (the statute) and Alaska Administrative Code Title 7 § 160.900(d)(30) (the regulation) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Alaska Constitution by restricting Medicaid funding of abortions with insufficiently narrow tailoring. In 2013, the Alaska Department of Health Continue Reading »
