The case concerned a First Amendment challenge by booksellers, publishers, libraries, and related groups to Alaska Statute § 11.61.128, as amended by SB 222, which criminalized the knowing electronic distribution to minors under 16 of material depicting sexual acts or lewd exhibitions that is deemed "harmful to minors" under a local community-standards test. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the law was unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, content-based, and violated the Commerce Clause by regulating out-of-state internet speech. The district court granted plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, denied the state's cross-motion and certification request, declared the statute unconstitutional on its face, permanently enjoined its enforcement, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court reasoned that the law imposed severe content-based restrictions on protected adult speech, failed strict scrutiny, swept in substantial protected expression among adults and older minors, and created inconsistent burdens on interstate commerce, consistent with rulings in other circuits striking down analogous statutes.
In Miller v. Treadwell, the plaintiff challenged Alaska election officials' procedures for counting write-in ballots that contained misspellings of candidates' names, alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause and the Equal Protection Clause after a U.S. Senate race. The district court had previously abstained under Pullman doctrine on the state-law questions and enjoined certification of the election pending state-court resolution. The Alaska state courts ruled against the plaintiff, interpreting state statutes to prioritize voter intent over strict spelling requirements. Upon return to federal court, the district court lifted the stay, rejected the remaining federal claims, and dismissed the case, holding that the state supreme court's interpretation was consistent with the statute's text and prior practice and did not override legislative rules in a manner that violated federal constitutional provisions.
The case involves a former nursing home resident assistant who sued her employer and the ERISA plan administrator (LINA) under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 after her long-term disability benefits were terminated. Benefits had been paid for two years under an "own occupation" standard but were discontinued when the plan shifted to an "any occupation" definition, based on medical record reviews, a surveillance video showing activities inconsistent with reported limitations, and evaluations by board-certified orthopedic and psychiatric specialists finding no disabling physical or mental impairments. The court reviewed the denial de novo, placed the burden on the plaintiff to prove entitlement, and dismissed the case after concluding the administrative record did not establish disability from any qualifying occupation. The core reasoning emphasized the lack of objective evidence supporting the claim, evidence of symptom magnification, and the adequacy of the plan administrator's independent reviews over the plaintiff's subjective complaints and treating providers' opinions.
The case involved environmental groups and Alaska Native tribes challenging the Department of the Interior's decision to hold Lease Sale 193, offering about 29.4 million acres in the Chukchi Sea for oil and gas development, on grounds that the accompanying Final Environmental Impact Statement violated NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court reviewed claims that the EIS inadequately assessed baseline environmental data, climate change effects, oil spill risks, cumulative impacts on species like eiders, limited development scenarios, and seismic surveying impacts. It concluded that the EIS was deficient in several respects, including failure to obtain or explain the absence of essential information under NEPA regulations. The court therefore issued an amended order remanding the matter to the agency for further environmental review rather than vacating the lease sale outright.
This case arose from groundwater contamination linked to a dry cleaning business on property in Alaska, where the State sued the Hinkles for cleanup costs; the Hinkles then pursued contribution claims against prior owners, the Bilodeaus, who were defended by insurers under policies that could not be located. After settling with the State and later with the Bilodeaus (who assigned rights against the insurers), the Hinkles sued the insurers for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing in refusing a settlement offer. The court granted the insurers' motions for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. It reasoned that the policies were occurrence-based and no qualifying occurrence during the policy period was shown, that presumed policy exclusions applied, and that the Bilodeaus' unauthorized settlement breached the cooperation clause without any prior breach by the insurers that would have justified it.
This case involves a dispute over insurance coverage for approximately $2 million in environmental cleanup costs arising from perc contamination at a former dry-cleaning site in Alaska. Plaintiffs, as assignees of the prior owners' claims, sued the insurers alleging breach of contract and bad faith failure to settle, after the insurers defended under a reservation of rights but could not locate the full policy documents. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the bad faith failure to settle claim and on punitive damages, finding insufficient evidence to support either under Alaska law, while denying other motions as moot because the claims were not actually asserted; it left for trial the threshold issue of whether the policies existed and provided coverage.
