“If an ambiguous statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, of which only one is constitutional, the doctrine of constitutional avoidance directs us to adopt the interpretation that saves the statute.”
How later courts described this case
- “If an ambiguous statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, of which only one is constitutional, the doctrine of constitutional avoidance directs us to adopt the interpretation that saves the statute.”
- describing facial challenge to statute and regulation as “seeking to invalidate them in toto, as enacted”
- “When ‘interpreting a statute, we consider its language, its purpose, and its legislative history, in an attempt to “give effect to the legislature’s intent, with due regard for the meaning the statutory language conveys to others.” ’ ” (quoting Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. DeShong, 77 P.3d 1227, 1234 (Alaska 2003))
- “A party raising a constitutional challenge to a statute bears the burden of demonstrating the constitutional violation. A presumption of constitutionality applies, and doubts are resolved in favor of constitutionality.” (quoting State, Dep’t of Revenue v. Andrade, 23 P.3d 58, 71 (Alaska 2001))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
This record has no opinion text. It is a disposition such as a denial of certiorari, kept so the case can be found by name and citation.