Ross v. State, Department of Revenue, 292 P.3d 906

Brian Ross, an Alaska resident since birth, has been absent for decades due to Naval Academy and Marine Corps service but maintained residency and received PFDs.
In 1998 Alaska amended AS 48.28.008 to create a ten-year absence rule that denied PFDs after ten consecutive allowably absent years, with an exception for Congress and related personnel.
The rule became effective in 1999 and denied Ross a 2009 dividend, as well as dividends for his children.
Ross challenged the rule in agency appeals and in superior court, arguing equal protection, substantive due process, retroactivity, and estoppel claims.
The superior court denied relief; Ross appeals to the Alaska Supreme Court, which affirms the superior court’s decision.
The ten-year rule also allows a congressional exemption for certain members and staff, which Ross challenges as unconstitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the ten-year rule violate equal protection?	Ross argues the rule discriminates among residents and exempts Congress.	State contends rational basis review shows a fair relation to legitimate objectives.	No; rule passes rational basis review and is related to legitimate interests.
Does the rule violate substantive due process?	Ross claims the rule shocks sense of justice by discriminating against a lifelong Alaskan.	Rule satisfies equal protection and thus cannot fail due process.	No; rule does not violate substantive due process.
Is the rule retroactive in effect?	Rule imposes new consequences on past conduct.	Rule affects only post-enactment eligibility determinations for 2009 PFDs.	No; not retroactive.
Does promissory estoppel prevent denial of a dividend?	State allegedly promised ongoing eligibility under existing law.	No enforceable promise; statute can be amended.	No; promissory estoppel fails.
Is the congressional exemption unconstitutional under equal protection?	Exemption favors Congress, undermining residency criteria.	Exemption rationally related to administrative efficiency and residency proxies.	No; exemption passes equal protection.

Church v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 973 P.2d 1125 (Alaska 1999) (reasonable method to limit PFD eligibility to permanent residents)
Harrod v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 255 P.3d 991 (Alaska 2011) (administrative burden reduction as legitimate objective)
Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55 (1982) (identifies purposes for dividend classifications; rational basis scrutiny)
Bradley v. State, Dep't of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Div., 896 P.2d 237 (Alaska 1995) (administrative efficiency and residency limits supported by precedent)
Pfeifer v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Pub. Assistance, 260 P.3d 1072 (Alaska 2011) (retroactivity/material effect standards; not retroactive here)