State of Alaska, Office of the Governor Mike Dunleavy, in an official capacity v. The Alaska Legislative Council, on behalf of the Alaska State Legislature, 498 P.3d 608

Governor Dunleavy submitted over 90 executive appointments during the 2020 legislative session; Alaska Constitution article III §§25–26 require confirmation "by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session."
AS 39.05.080(3) (as amended in 1964) provides that "failure of the legislature to act" during a regular session is "tantamount to a declination of confirmation."
The COVID-19 pandemic interrupted the legislature’s ability to meet; the legislature passed H.B. 309 (2020) delaying the statutory effect of inaction so inaction would not be "tantamount" to declination until specified later dates tied to the public-health emergency.
The legislature took no confirmation votes before adjourning; the governor asserted appointees would continue to serve and invoked recess-appointment authority.
The Legislative Council sued seeking declarations and injunctions; the superior court ruled for the Legislative Council, treating the appointees as effectively rejected.
The Alaska Supreme Court reversed, holding the statutes equating inaction with rejection violated article III §§25–26 because the Constitution requires a joint-session majority vote to confirm or reject.

Issue	Legislative Council's Argument	Dunleavy's Argument	Held
Whether AS 39.05.080(3) and H.B. 309 may treat legislative inaction as a "declination" of confirmation	The statutes validly fill procedural gaps; inaction may be treated as rejection and therefore disqualify interim/recess appointments	The Constitution requires confirmation "by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session"; inaction cannot substitute for a joint-session vote	Held unconstitutional: statutes cannot convert legislative inaction into a rejection because the Constitution mandates joint-session vote for confirmation/rejection
Whether the governor’s appointees were thereby lawfully rejected and ineligible to continue or to receive recess appointments	Because inaction equaled rejection, appointees were disqualified from continuing or being reappointed during the interim	Appointees remain in office until the legislature affirmatively votes; recess appointment power was available if necessary	Court did not decide recess-appointment issue on the merits because it resolved the case by striking the "inaction = rejection" provisions; superior court judgment reversed and final judgment vacated

Wielechowski v. State, 403 P.3d 1141 (Alaska 2017) (principles for constitutional interpretation)
Bradner v. Hammond, 553 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1976) (confirmation as the outer limits of legislative appointive function)
Forrer v. State, 471 P.3d 569 (Alaska 2020) (use of constitutional text and drafting history in interpretation)
Cook v. Botelho, 921 P.2d 1126 (Alaska 1996) (describing confirmation as a post-appointment veto power)
Hammond v. Hoffbeck, 627 P.2d 1052 (Alaska 1981) (ordinary meaning of constitutional text)
Munson v. Territory of Alaska, 16 Alaska 580 (D. Alaska 1956) (territorial case treating inaction as rejection; discussed and distinguished by the Court)