Connect with us

Alaska

Alaska Supreme Court weighs whether correspondence education lawsuit wrongly targeted state • Alaska Beacon

Published

on

Alaska Supreme Court weighs whether correspondence education lawsuit wrongly targeted state • Alaska Beacon


Alaska Supreme Court justices on Thursday weighed whether a lawsuit seeking to have the large portions of the state’s correspondence school program found unconstitutional wrongly focused on the state government.

The justices heard arguments in the appeal of a Superior Court ruling that found a correspondence school program law to be unconstitutional.

A central question from the justices during oral arguments was whether plaintiffs should be suing the state’s education department or individual districts.

The case whose decision is under appeal is State of Alaska, Department of Education and Early Development v. Alexander, in which plaintiffs argued that it is unconstitutional for public education money to be spent on private school tuition. Superior Court Judge Adolf Zeman found the spending unconstitutional and struck down the parts of statute that allow homeschool allotment money; he suggested lawmakers could rewrite the law to make it constitutional.

Advertisement

The state constitution does not allow the use of public funds for the benefit of private or religious schools.

Attorneys for the state of Alaska, a group of parents whose children attend private school using allotment money and another set of parents who argue that spending is unconstitutional all made oral arguments. Justices interrupted all three of the attorneys’ arguments with pointed questions about how the case should be decided.

Attorneys for the state appealed Zeman’s ruling and said the case should not hold the state’s education department to account because individual school districts are the only oversight body for homeschool spending.

In May, Gov. Mike Dunleavy and Deputy Attorney General Cori Mills argued the lower court’s ruling should be thrown out because it is too broad, but Elbert Lin, a Virginia lawyer hired by the state, argued that since the Alaska statute that governs homeschool allotment spending has many constitutional applications, such as spending for school supplies as retailers like Target, it should not be thrown out — even if there is also the opportunity for the statute to be applied unconstitutionally.

“It is irrelevant whether the provision might be applied unconstitutionally in the view of the plaintiffs or even this court,” he said. Lin argued that if there is an unconstitutional use of the funds, the plaintiffs should sue individual districts, not the state. That way the courts can enforce any unconstitutional spending with a “scalpel rather than a sledgehammer.”

Advertisement

The state’s education department was once responsible for monitoring homeschool allotment spending, but a 2014 law proposed by Dunleavy, then a state senator, put that responsibility on districts instead.

Justice Dario Borghesan probed Lin’s argument and asked if state law allows allotments to be spent on full-time private school tuition. He said “both text and legislative history” suggest that full-time enrollment in private school is not correspondence study, which requires a certified teacher to come up with a learning plan for the student. “That seems somewhat nullified, or maybe a rubber stamp, if the child is just attending private school full time,” he said.

Anchorage parents who use homeschool allotments to pay for private school educations joined the case as intervenors, as people who could be affected by its outcome. Their attorney, Kirby Thomas West, took a different tack than the attorney for the state, and argued that the court should make a decision to reverse the lower court’s ruling. She argued that it would violate the United States Constitution to tell parents how they can spend their money.

Borghesan pushed back on that assessment because allotments are public school money. He cited previous case law: “While parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to public school, they do not have a fundamental right, generally, to direct how a public school teaches their child,” he read. Essentially, he said, states have authority over how public education money is spent, so the state can stipulate that it may not be spent on a private education.

West sought to make her point through a different comparison: “It would be absurd and patently unconstitutional to suggest that the state must police the use of Permanent Fund dividends to ensure that no Alaskan ever uses that money to defray the cost of their child’s tuition at a private school,” she said. “It’s just as unconstitutional to do so here.”

Advertisement

She asked the justices to place a stay, which is a pause on the implementation of a ruling, on the lower court’s decision if they sent the case back to the lower court for reconsideration. The stay would mean her clients could continue to spend public education money on private school tuition.

After the arguments, Chief Deputy Attorney General Margaret Paton-Walsh said she thought the case went well for the defense. “It’s always hard to read the tea leaves, but I think some of the justices certainly seem to be pretty skeptical of that superior court decision,” she said.

She pointed out that it is not typical for the intervenors to make a distinct argument from the defense: “So I think that creates an extra wrinkle for the justices to try to noodle through as they think about the case,” she said.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Scott Kendall, asked the court to uphold Zeman’s ruling. He argued that the judge was right to strike down homeschool allotments because the intent of the statute is to allow unconstitutional spending.

He pointed to legislative history in his appeal: when Dunleavy proposed the allotment law, he also sought a change to the state constitution to allow public funds to be spent at private schools. Dunleavy also proposed enacting school vouchers, which like the amendment, did not pass.

Advertisement

Kendall said that for that reason the plaintiffs should not have to sue individual school districts, because the statute is meant to allow unconstitutional spending: “When a statute grants a plainly unconstitutional power, as it does in this case — and in fact, the legislative history meticulously explains that that was the very sole reason why this legislation was passed — then it’s clearly unconstitutional on its face,” he said.

Borghesan pushed back on this argument. He repeatedly asked Kendall why the whole statute should be thrown out, rather than targeting unconstitutional uses by suing districts. “Why does that bad purpose, you know, defeat the whole rest of the statute? I mean, we have separation of powers. We’re respectful of the Legislature’s actions,” he said. “We kind of have a duty to uphold constitutional applications of statutes.”

Kendall conceded there may be a way to keep the statute without allowing public education dollars to pay for private school tuition: “There is a possibility this court, with ingenuity, could do a limiting construction — could sever parts of this — and that would be an outcome we would support,” he said.

He then referred to an early court case, in which the Supreme Court invalidated state scholarships for Sheldon Jackson College, a Sitka institution that later closed.

“Because the real core concern here, again, is the core concern when you go back to the Sheldon Jackson case, which is, are we using public funds to subsidize a private educational purpose?” Kendall said. “Here it is clear. It’s clear from the purpose of the statute, it’s clear from the interveners’ very presence here, it’s clear this is happening, and it’s clear this was the purpose of the statute.”

Advertisement

Deena Bishop, the commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Education and Early Development, was in the courtroom. She said after the hearing that, in her view, districts are doing a good job of ensuring state money is spent constitutionally. She did not directly say whether the state education department is in a position to regulate spending. Foremost, she said, her interest is correspondence students: “My purpose and goals are to have a great education every day for young people, and there are nearly 23,000 — it’s 22,900 students — that we want to ensure that their education continues without disruption.”

Chief Justice Peter Maassen said the court would consider the appeal and issue “something” but did not give a time frame for a decision: “No timelines are guaranteed, but we understand the urgency of the matter,” he said. Without a new court ruling, Zeman’s ruling would go into effect on Monday.

Editor-in-Chief Andrew Kitchenman contributed reporting to this story.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Advertisement



Source link

Advertisement

Alaska

Travel prices are going up, up and away. Here’s what to watch.

Published

on

Travel prices are going up, up and away. Here’s what to watch.


Up, up and away … that’s where most travel prices are going.

It’s true. Not only are our nation’s geopolitical thrusts in the Mideast affecting the cost of your fill-ups, every component of your trip from airfares to car rentals and hotel stays are subject to price hikes.

Imagine filling up a jetliner with jet fuel that’s doubled in price. It’s enough to melt your credit card, regardless of the number of points you get for every dollar spent!

Because the price of oil affects everything, higher prices are eating away at your travel budget in many ways.

Advertisement

Bag fees

There’s lots of press on this. All airlines are increasing their checked-bag fees because of the jump in fuel prices.

Back in 2009, Alaska Airlines instituted a $15 fee for the first checked bag and $25 for the second bag. At the time, there was no charge for the first bag and a second bag was $25.

Last week, Alaska Airlines, along with other major airlines, increased its fees to $45 for the first checked bag and $55 for the second bag. Delta Air Lines charges the same.

Even if the cost of oil comes down, I don’t expect bag fees will ever be reduced.

Travelers who live in Alaska are somewhat insulated from the new hikes because both Delta and Alaska Airlines offer two free checked bags, with conditions:

Advertisement

1. Alaska offers two free checked bags for travelers flying to or from Alaska who are enrolled in Club 49. This does not affect other flights on Alaska. Separately, ATMOS credit card holders can get a free checked bag. Also, elite members of the ATMOS scheme get one or two free checked bags systemwide.

2. Delta offers two free checked bags for travelers flying to or from Alaska who are SkyMiles members who live in Alaska. Again, this does not apply to other Delta flights. Separately, Delta American Express cardholders can get a free checked bag.

3. Elite-level travelers with the oneworld airline cartel, including Alaska Airlines, can get one or two checked bags on American, British Airways, Japan Airlines, Qantas or other oneworld carriers.

[Anchorage’s international airport rolls out self-driving wheelchairs]

Main Cabin vs. Basic Economy

The spread between the lowest available price, Basic Economy, and a more flexible ticket, Main Cabin, has increased. While the difference used to be $20-$30 each way when the Basic Economy scheme was introduced in 2018, the round-trip upcharge now can exceed $100.

Advertisement

For example, the lowest Basic fare to Portland is $337 round-trip on Alaska Airlines. The upcharge to Main Cabin, with full loyalty points, pre-assigned seats and more flexibility on changes and cancellations, is $447, a 33% upcharge.

This trend is not specifically attributable to the new Iran War. It’s just a cost that continues to rise.

New fees

I’m impressed at the creativity of airline people who dream up new fees. Here are some of my favorites from Alaska Airlines:

1. Phone reservations: $15

2. Partner award booking fee: $12.50

Advertisement

3. Pet travel fee: $100 in the cabin, $200 in the baggage compartment with a kennel

4. Left on board item return fee: $20

On Condor Airlines, operating the only nonstop service from Anchorage to Europe, travelers can choose from four different bundles in economy class. The least-expensive, Economy Zero, from $840 round-trip, features fees for travelers:

1. Carry-on bag fee, up to 8kg: $35; a small bag like a purse always is included for free

2. Checked bag: $75

Advertisement

3. Airport check-in: $30

All three of these fees are included in the next-highest fare bucket, Economy Classic, from $900 round-trip. It’s cheaper to buy the bundle than it is to buy the components a la carte. Seat assignments are additional, from $25 for economy.

Airfares on the rise

There are a few good deals available for travel to select West Coast/Intermountain destinations in May, including:

1. Anchorage-San Francisco on Alaska Airlines, from $307 round-trip. Fly May 15-28 only. Add $90 round-trip for Main cabin.

2. Anchorage-Los Angeles on Alaska Airlines, from $317 round-trip. May 15-25 only. Add $90 round-trip for Main.

Advertisement

3. Anchorage-Phoenix on United, Delta or Alaska, from $267-$287 round-trip. Fly May 8-June 9 only. Add $90-$100 for Main.

4. Anchorage-Denver $357 round-trip on Delta. Fly May 8-June 9 only. Add $90 round-trip for Main.

For travel to other destinations, or later in the summer, be prepared to pay more.

Flying to Hawaii? Alaska Air’s nonstop prices out at $706 round-trip between May 30 and June 6. Add $110 round-trip for Main.

Nonstop flights from Anchorage to Salt Lake City start at $669 round-trip with Delta on May 17. That’s $100 more than the cost for the same flights last month. Add $90 more for Main.

Advertisement

Hotel costs continue to rise, accompanied by pesky resort fees.

The Outrigger on the Beach in Waikiki is a very nice beachfront hotel. It’s not plush, or the nicest property. But it’s solid. The cost is $334 per night.

But there’s more: a $50 per night resort fee, plus a variety of taxes and charges, totaling $112.55 per night.

Down in Seattle, the Sound Hotel in the Belltown neighborhood is marketed by Hilton. The discounted rate for “Honors” members — it’s free to join — is $313.34 per night for a king room in late May. Taxes and fees add an extra $56.40 per night.

There’s no appreciable bump yet for hotel rates as a result of the oil price surge. Yet. But if these hotel rates seem high, they’re in line with hotel rates in Anchorage this summer. At the Sheraton in Anchorage in June, it’s $450 per night, plus $54 in taxes and fees, when booked at Expedia.

Advertisement

Car rentals are not cheap

My go-to site for car rentals is the Costco site, which compares major brands and automatically includes Costco discounts.

In Las Vegas, for a one-day rental in May, Budget charges $67 per day, which includes taxes and fees of $22.77. In Anchorage, the same kind of car, medium SUV, costs $92.97 with Alamo.

The biggest differences so far in car rental rates seems to be the bill you’ll pay when you fill up the tank before returning. There’s no appreciable jump in prices because of the new war.

When it comes to making travel arrangements for the spring and summer, it’s more risky making completely non-refundable arrangements.

I made the decision to purchase most of my summer travel plans in advance, but only after determining I would not need to change the dates. Particularly with airline tickets, it’s expensive to change your dates.

Advertisement

There’s lots of uncertainty regarding travel arrangements, particularly international travel. As fuel prices go up due to oil shortages, travel companies will look for ways to recoup the increased costs. In most cases, those higher costs will be borne by travelers.





Source link

Continue Reading

Alaska

Murkowski warns decreasing national fuel prices could spell disaster for rural Alaska

Published

on

Murkowski warns decreasing national fuel prices could spell disaster for rural Alaska


ANCHORAGE, Alaska (KTUU) – The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz has led to a decrease in oil prices nationally, but Alaska’s senior senator said the state faces a different situation that could threaten rural communities.

“If you can’t produce power because you don’t have the diesel or you just can’t pay the prices, your little communities can collapse,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said at a Friday press conference at the Arctic Encounter Summit in Anchorage.

The price of oil has been a double-edged sword for Alaska. On one hand, the increased price of North Slope oil brings more revenue to the state, but consumer prices can also rise.

North Slope oil prices were $106.36 a barrel on Thursday.

Advertisement

“This is a very precarious time,” Murkowski said. “Our state has enjoyed a bounty because we have benefited from the higher prices of oil that goes into our treasury, but it’s the Alaskans in … the off-road communities that are threatened to be hit most hard.”

See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com

Copyright 2026 KTUU. All rights reserved.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

New oil and gas lease sale set for Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, amid litigation

Published

on

New oil and gas lease sale set for Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, amid litigation


JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — The U.S. government plans another oil and gas lease sale for Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — following two prior sales that saw no interest from major oil companies and amid ongoing litigation aimed at blocking drilling in a region seen as sacred by the indigenous Gwich’in.

The sale will be held June 5, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management announced Friday. It would be the first in the region under a law passed by Congress last year calling for four lease sales in the refuge’s coastal plain over a 10-year period. But it would be the third in the refuge overall, following one held near the end of President Donald Trump’s first term that has been tangled in litigation and another in early 2025, shortly before then-President Joe Biden left office, that yielded no bids.

Drilling supporters, including Alaska political leaders, argued last year’s sale was too meager an offering to draw interest.

The upcoming sale also would be the third federal oil and gas lease sale this year alone in Alaska under an aggressive push by the Trump administration to expand development in the state. There were no bidders in a sale last month for the aging Cook Inlet basin, while a lease sale in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska — where the large Willow oil project is under development — drew hundreds of bids despite pending legal challenges to the sale.

Advertisement

Bill Groffy, the land management agency’s acting director, in a statement said the success of last month’s petroleum reserve sale signaled a “robust and continuing demand for Alaskan energy, underscoring the need for more opportunities like the Coastal Plain sale.”

Leaders from Gwich’in villages near the arctic refuge and conservation groups vowed to continue fighting efforts to open the refuge’s coastal plain to drilling. The Gwich’in consider the coastal plain sacred, as it provides calving grounds for a caribou herd they rely on. The plain, bordering the Beaufort Sea in northeast Alaska and featuring rolling hills and tundra, also provides habitat for wildlife including muskoxen and migratory birds.

“The Trump Administration’s relentless push to auction off this sacred land despite overwhelming public opposition and industry that has already signaled they are not interested makes clear that this administration values corporate interests over the rights and lives of Indigenous peoples,” Galen Gilbert, first chief of Arctic Village Council, said in a statement. “We will continue to fight with every tool available to protect the Coastal Plain for our children and all future generations.”

Debate over drilling in the region spans decades.

Leaders of Kaktovik, an Iñupiaq community within the refuge, consider responsible development key to their region’s economic well-being and have welcomed efforts by the Trump administration to open more lands for drilling.

Advertisement

The Bureau of Land Management has said the coastal plain could contain 4.25 billion to 11.8 billion barrels of recoverable oil, but there is limited information about the amount and quality of oil. Meanwhile, conservation groups see the refuge as the crown jewel of the country’s refuge system and a place that should be off-limits to development. The refuge itself is the largest in the country, covering an area roughly the size of South Carolina.

Andy Moderow, senior director of policy at Alaska Wilderness League, said the planned sale “simply runs counter to common sense.”

“Any oil and gas company that is even thinking about buying these leases should know that, if they do, they will be sending a clear message to the American people that no place in Alaska is too sacred to drill in a quest for corporate profits,” he said in a statement urging companies to sit out the sale.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending