State v. Schmidt
323 P.3d 647
Alaska2014Background
- Alaska and Anchorage statute/regulation exempt $150,000 of assessed value for a primary residence owned and occupied by a senior (65+) or a disabled veteran; only one exemption per property and reimbursement rules tie benefits to spouse-occupancy language in 3 AAC 135.085.
- Three same-sex couples (six plaintiffs) sued, contending the program denies them full exemption because same-sex partners cannot marry or be recognized as spouses in Alaska.
- Two couples (Schmidt/Schuh and Vollick/Bernard) co-owned their homes as tenants in common; the eligible partner owned 50% and received only a pro rata exemption.
- Third couple (Traber/Snider): the senior (Snider) did not appear on title; the superior court granted relief to all three couples and awarded attorney fees.
- On appeal the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed for the two co-owning couples (equal protection violation) but reversed for Traber/Snider, holding the statute requires the senior or veteran to have some ownership interest; vacated and remanded attorney-fee award for further findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Marriage Amendment bars equal protection claims | Marriage amendment does not strip other constitutional protections; ACLU precedent allows challenge | Marriage Amendment (art I §25) and AS 25.05.013 mean married vs unmarried distinctions are lawful | Marriage Amendment does not bar the equal protection claims (ACLU controls) |
| Whether the exemption regime facially discriminates based on sexual orientation | Spousal-based language (spouse, husband, wife) facially discriminates because same-sex couples cannot marry | Classification is facially neutral or based on property-title/tenancy distinctions, not sexual orientation | The statute/regulation facially discriminates between same-sex and opposite-sex couples |
| Whether committed same-sex couples are similarly situated to opposite-sex couples who want to marry | Same-sex domestic partners who would marry if allowed are similarly situated to opposite-sex couples who marry | They are not similarly situated because of differences like tenancy by entirety and title forms | Committed same-sex couples who would marry are similarly situated to opposite-sex couples who marry |
| Whether an eligible senior/veteran must have an ownership interest to claim the exemption | Regulation language can be read to treat titled owner identity as irrelevant and extend exemption to non-titled spouse | Statute requires property to be "owned and occupied" by the eligible person; regulation does not override statute | Senior or disabled-veteran must occupy and have some ownership interest; Traber/Snider not entitled to exemption |
Key Cases Cited
- Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State, 122 P.3d 781 (Alaska 2005) (held spousal-benefit programs became facially discriminatory after Alaska’s Marriage Amendment and permitted equal protection challenges)
- Alaska Inter-Tribal Council v. State, 110 P.3d 947 (Alaska 2005) (framework for assessing whether classes are similarly situated)
- Krone v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., 222 P.3d 250 (Alaska 2009) (standards and need for findings when awarding attorney’s fees for constitutional claims)
- Planned Parenthood of Alaska, Inc. v. State, 28 P.3d 904 (Alaska 2001) (discussion of governmental interests and scrutiny in equal protection analysis)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1996) (example that a constitutional amendment cannot validly strip protected classes of all legal protections)