Honorable Michael J Dunleavy, in his Official Capacity as Governor for the State of Alaska, Commissioner Kelly Tshibaka, in her Official Capacity as Commissioner of Administration, and Commissioner Michael Johnson, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of Education and Early Development v. The Alaska Legislative Council, on Behalf of The Alaska State Legislature Coalition for Education Equity, Intervenor, Honorable Michael J. Dunleavy, in his Official Capacity as Governor for the State of Alaska, Commissioner Kelly Tshibaka, in her Official Capacity as Commissioner of Administration, and Commissioner Michael Johnson, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of Education and Early Development v. Coalition for Education Equity, 515 P.3d 117

Background

In 2018 the Alaska Legislature passed HB 287, which appropriated FY2019 and forward‑funded FY2020 public education allocations (FY2020 provisions effective July 1, 2019).
Forward funding was intended to give school districts budget certainty and avoid springtime layoffs; prior AG advice under Governor Walker had approved the practice.
Governor Dunleavy (new administration) declined to treat the FY2020 appropriations as valid based on his AG’s opinion that forward funding violated Alaska’s annual budgeting model.
The Alaska Legislative Council sued for declaratory and injunctive relief; the Coalition for Education Equity intervened to defend the appropriations.
The superior court granted summary judgment for the Council and Coalition, ordered disbursement of funds, and awarded attorney’s fees.
The Alaska Supreme Court reversed: it held forward funding at issue inconsistent with the Constitution’s annual appropriation model and vacated the fee awards because there was no prevailing party.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Are forward‑funded appropriations (FY2020) consistent with Alaska’s Constitution?	Forward funding is permissible; constitution’s budget clauses impose no temporal limit on the legislature and future legislatures can always amend repeal.	Forward funding circumvents the Constitution’s annual budgeting model, the veto, and anti‑dedication principles.	Held: Forward funding here is inconsistent with the Constitution’s annual appropriation model and therefore unconstitutional.
2. Does the public‑education clause (art. VII, §1) permit an exception to annual appropriation rules for education?	Education’s constitutional mandate requires flexibility; financing complexity warrants deference to legislative solutions.	No. The duty to fund education does not override the annual appropriation model that governs all state budgeting.	Held: Education funding is subject to the same annual appropriation model; no exception for forward funding.
3. Did the governor’s refusal to disburse funds violate his duty to faithfully execute the laws?	Council: refusal violated the Faithful Execution Clause; an injunction was appropriate.	Governor: relied on AG opinion that appropriations were unconstitutional; execution could be withheld pending resolution.	Held: Court rejects extended discussion because parties stipulated interim funding and any non‑execution was de minimis; not a separate basis to uphold relief after reversal.
4. Were attorney’s fees to the Legislative Council and Coalition properly awarded?	Both sought fees as prevailing constitutional litigants.	Governor: no prevailing party because Supreme Court reversal removes victory.	Held: Because the Supreme Court reverses the merits ruling, neither appellee remains a prevailing party; fee awards vacated.

Key Cases Cited

Wielechowski v. State, 403 P.3d 1141 (Alaska 2017) (Permanent Fund income and programs are subject to normal annual appropriation and veto processes)
Sonneman v. Hickel, 836 P.2d 936 (Alaska 1992) (dedicated funds clause preserves annual appropriation model)
State v. Alex, 646 P.2d 203 (Alaska 1982) (declines constitutional‑mandate exception to anti‑dedication rule)
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. State, 202 P.3d 1162 (Alaska 2009) (dedicated funds clause can reach statutes that undercut its policies)
O'Callaghan v. Coghill, 888 P.2d 1302 (Alaska 1995) (attorney general opinion alone insufficient to establish that a law is clearly unconstitutional)
State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, 366 P.3d 86 (Alaska 2016) (articulates joint legislative‑executive responsibility for annual spending priorities)