jnu.law.ecf@alaska.

gov

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA

THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT AN~/tP,,fAGE
- rn thlil TRfAl COUli'T"'
STATE OF AtASt' "' ..,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ) r.A, THIRD OISTRrcr
UNION OF ALASKA, BONNIE L. )
JACK, and JOHN D. KAUFFMAN, ) NOV 13 2020
) Clerk of tile Tria! Court5
By _ _ _ _ __ _
Plaintiffs, ) Deputy
)
v. )
)
MICHAEL J. DUNLEAVY, in his ) Case No. 3AN-19-08349 CI
otlicial capacity as Governor of Alaska, )
and STA TE OF ALASKA, )
)
Defendants.
1+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs have moved this Court for entry of final judgment. Defendants
Governor Michael J. Dunleavy and the State of Alaska, by and through the Office of the
Attorney General, partially oppose the motion. Defendants do not oppose entry of final
judgment, but they oppose the final judgment proposed by Plaintiffs.
On October 16, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment and denied Defendants' cross-motion. The Court concluded that the
Governor's line-item vetoes of $334,700 from the appellate court system's FY2020 and
FY202 l budgets violated the separation of powers doctrine. The Court ordered that the
vetoed sum of $334, 700 from the appellate court's FY202 l budget be restored. The
Court directed the parties to submit " further briefing regarding the proper mechanism
for restoring that appropriation" if either party saw the need. Neither party filed any
briefing. And Defendants see no need for further instructions from the Court about
transferring the vetoed funds to the court system.
The funds at issue are not being "refunded" to the court system. The money was
appropriated, and the Governor exercised his line-item veto power. Given that the Court
voided the Governor's veto, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can
"restore" the vetoed funds by transferring the funds to the court system pursuant to the
appropriation legislation- just like any other appropriation.
Finally, page 16 of the Court's order states: "This Court trusts that its co-equal
branches, in receiving this Court decision, and any following order of the Alaska
Supreme Court, will move forward in goodfaith in light of the final assessment of the
Courts- whether that be this order, or a further order ofthe Alaska Supreme Court."
Plaintiffs' proposed 30-day time limit for processing the appropriation is inconsistent
with the Court's statement. Execution of the laws- including appropriation
legislation- rests solely with the governor. The appropriation at issue is for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 2021. Thus, the appropriation legislation requires that the funds be
transferred to the court system for use for FY2020 expenses. This Court should reject
the Plaintiffs' attempt to micro-manage the Defendants' execution of the subject
appropriation.
Defendants' proposed final judgment accompanies this opposition.

DATED November 13, 2020.

CLYDE "ED" SNIFFEN, JR.

ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: Isl JESSICA LEEAH

Jessica Leeah
Assistant Attorney General
Alaska Bar No. 041 21 05

ACLU, et al. v. Dunleavy, et al. Case No. 3AN-l 9-08349 CI

Opposition to Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Page 2 of2