Preserving Constitutional Funding Frameworks: The Plainly Legitimate Sweep Standard and Joinder in Article VII, Section 1 Challenges

Introduction

In State of Alaska, Department of Education & Early Development et al. v. Edward Alexander et al. (SC Nos. S-19083/19113, Mar. 28, 2025), the Alaska Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of two statutes authorizing correspondence‐school “allotment” funds for families of home‐school or hybrid‐school students. Under AS 14.03.300 (the “ILP statute”) and AS 14.03.310 (the “allotment statute”), local school districts or the State may develop an Individual Learning Plan (“ILP”) for correspondence students and award each student’s family a stipend to cover educational expenses — including “nonsectarian services and materials from a public, private, or religious organization.” Parents of public‐school students challenged the statutes under article VII, section 1 of the Alaska Constitution, which prohibits “public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.” They sought a declaration that the statutes were facially invalid or, alternatively, invalid as applied to payment of private‐school tuition. The Superior Court struck both statutes in their entirety. On expedited review, the Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the statutes and remanding for further proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that:

Facial invalidation was too drastic. A facial challenge succeeds only if a statute lacks a “plainly legitimate sweep.” Even if some applications of AS 14.03.300-.310 might impermissibly fund private‐school tuition, the statutes plainly authorize many constitutionally unexceptionable uses (e.g., purchase of books and supplies, tutoring by private individuals or public institutions, martial‐arts classes, art lessons, University of Alaska courses).
As-applied relief requires proper parties. To adjudicate whether specific uses of allotment funds are unconstitutional, the court must have before it the entity that authorized the spending. Since local school districts — not the Department of Education — actually approved individual ILPs and allotment expenditures, those districts must be joined under Civil Rule 19 before any as-applied challenge proceeds.
The private‐tuition question is unresolved. The Court declined to decide whether using allotment funds to pay full-time private‐school tuition violates article VII, section 1 because (1) the record never established that the statutes unambiguously permit that use, and (2) no school district that allegedly authorized such tuition expenditures was a party.

The Court vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded for joinder of necessary parties and further statutory and constitutional analysis.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Treacy v. Municipality of Anchorage (91 P.3d 252 (Alaska 2004)): Adopting the “plainly legitimate sweep” test for facial challenges — a statute survives so long as it has a substantial number of constitutional applications.
State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska (171 P.3d 577 (Alaska 2007)): Reaffirming that facial invalidation is disfavored when some applications are manifestly lawful.
Sheldon Jackson College v. State (599 P.2d 127 (Alaska 1979)): Interpreting article VII, section 1’s “direct benefit” prohibition in light of the constitutional convention debates and emphasizing the framers’ intent not to bar incidental support for private‐school students (e.g., welfare, health services).
Owsichek v. State, Guide Licensing & Control Board (763 P.2d 488 (Alaska 1988)): Striking monopoly grants to single hunting guides as facially unconstitutional under article VIII’s equal‐protection mandate — illustrative of invalidation only where every application is forbidden.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. The “plainly legitimate sweep” standard. The Court reaffirmed that a facial challenge fails unless a statute “plainly” authorizes no constitutional applications. This approach preserves legitimate legislative enactments while allowing narrower, as-applied relief where specific uses are unconstitutional.

b. Text and history of article VII, section 1. The Court parsed the phrase “public funds … direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.” Drawing on the 1955–1956 constitutional debates, it concluded:

“Educational institution” refers narrowly to entities akin to schools or colleges, not every “organization” selling a textbook or curriculum.
“Direct benefit” was meant to bar government construction, operation, or maintenance of private schools and tuition subsidies (e.g., scholarship grants), but not incidental welfare or health services or private purchases of instructional materials.

c. Application to AS 14.03.300-.310. The allotment statute explicitly authorizes expenditures for:

Books, computers, manipulatives, and other curricular materials;
Fees for public or private art, music, athletic, and enrichment classes;
Courses at the University of Alaska or recognized correspondence vendors;
Incidental tutoring by private individuals (e.g., reading specialists).

None of these uses “directly” benefits a private educational institution under the framers’ understanding. Consequently, AS 14.03.310 has a plainly legitimate sweep, and AS 14.03.300’s ILP framework — which simply structures how correspondence plans are developed and assessed — cannot be struck down in toto.

d. Joinder in as-applied challenges. Under Alaska Civil Rule 19(a), a party must be joined if “complete relief cannot be accorded” without it. Since local school districts, not the State Department, authorize specific allotment expenditures, any as-applied claim that a district’s decision is unconstitutional requires that district as a party. The Court vacated the Superior Court’s contrary ruling and remanded for joinder proceedings.

3. Impact

This decision will guide future litigation and legislation in several ways:

Courts will apply the “plainly legitimate sweep” test rigorously, preserving statutes that authorize substantial constitutional uses even if some applications are debatable.
Legislatures will be encouraged to draft clear boundaries on funding programs, specifying permissible uses to avoid facial attacks.
Parties challenging government expenditures must join the precise entity making the contested decision — here, local school boards rather than the State Department.
The private‐tuition question remains open: lower courts on remand will first determine whether the allotment statute actually permits payment of full‐time private‐school tuition; only then will constitutional analysis follow.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge: A facial challenge asserts a law is invalid in all its applications; an as-applied challenge contends that a law is invalid only in specific circumstances. Facial invalidation is disfavored because it cuts away the entire statute even where many valid applications exist.
Plainly Legitimate Sweep: A statute has a “plainly legitimate sweep” if it authorizes a significant number of undeniably lawful applications. Under this standard, occasional unconstitutional applications do not doom the entire law.
Direct vs. Incidental Benefit: Under article VII, section 1, a direct benefit to private educational institutions (e.g., building a private school, subsidizing tuition directly) is prohibited; incidental benefits (e.g., welfare services, purchase of books, health screenings) are allowed.
Rule 19 Joinder: Alaska Civil Rule 19(a) requires joining any party whose involvement is necessary to grant complete relief. You cannot enjoin or obtain a declaration against an entity that is not before the court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Alexander clarifies two critical principles in Alaska constitutional and procedural law. First, the “plainly legitimate sweep” doctrine shields statutes with substantial constitutional uses from facial invalidation, respecting legislative authority and avoiding over-broad remedies. Second, as-applied constitutional challenges require the joinder of the specific governmental entity whose actions are at issue. By reversing the wholesale invalidation of the correspondence‐study and allotment statutes and remanding for proper party joinder and further analysis, the Court preserves a flexible funding mechanism for Alaska families while ensuring rigorous constitutional protection against improper public support of private and religious schools.