Alaska Law Department backs open-records lawsuit against Judicial Council, challenges secrecy over judge selection

By SUZANNE DOWNING

Oct. 21, 2026 – The State of Alaska is urging an Anchorage court to reject the Alaska Judicial Council’s attempt to dismiss a public-records lawsuit seeking information about diversity considerations in judicial selection.

In an amicus brief filed Oct. 20, the Department of Law argues that the council’s constitutional independence does not exempt it from Alaska’s Public Records Act or allow its internal bylaws to determine the limits of public access.

The filing supports allowing America First Legal Foundation’s lawsuit to proceed. The organization is seeking records that could show how the council applies diversity provisions when evaluating prospective judges.

America First Legal sues Alaska Judicial Council over DEI public-records request

“The public is entitled to know how the gatekeepers to that power do their work,” the state’s brief says.

The filing was submitted under Acting Attorney General Cori Mills and signed by Civil Division Director Charles J. Gartland. It asks the Superior Court to deny the council’s motion to dismiss in America First Legal Foundation v. Alaska Judicial Council, case number 3AN-26-09043CI.

The dispute began with a June 5 records request. According to AFL’s opposition filing, the council acknowledged receipt that day but provided no further substantive response before AFL sued Sept. 2, 89 days later. AFL announced its opposition to dismissal on Oct. 20; the court stamp on that document shows it was received Oct. 19.

The judicial council has not met as a body since the suit was filed. The next scheduled meeting is Nov. 1.

The request concerns the council’s use of diversity, equity and inclusion considerations, including bylaw language directing it to make efforts to promote gender and ethnic diversity.

The council’s published selection procedures also discuss applicants’ life experiences, exposure to different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and commitment to equal justice. Those procedures state that the council refrains from discrimination prohibited by state and federal law.

The state argues that access to records is necessary to examine whether lawful standards are being followed.

“Calling a practice ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ does not make it lawful,” the brief states.

The council occupies a powerful position in Alaska’s appointment process: The governor cannot appoint an applicant whom the council has not nominated. The state argues that this screening authority makes transparency especially important because rejected applicants may hesitate to challenge a body that will also evaluate them for future vacancies.

The seven-member council includes three attorneys selected by the Alaska Bar Association, three non-attorneys appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature, and the Alaska Supreme Court’s chief justice as chair. The council describes its role as screening applicants and nominating the most qualified for appointment.

According to the state’s brief, the council argues that the executive branch’s 10-working-day records deadline does not apply to it and that the lawsuit is premature because it has not formally denied the request.

The state agrees that the executive branch regulation does not govern the council. But it rejects the conclusion that the absence of that deadline prevents a lawsuit over unreasonable delay.

The brief points to Alaska’s public-records enforcement statute, which authorizes court intervention against obstruction as well as outright denial. The state argues that a requester need not wait indefinitely for an agency to announce it has finished processing a request.

The council says it is actively processing the request, according to the brief. The state responds that the council’s motion provides neither a production date nor a schedule.

AFL’s separate opposition filing also acknowledges a Sept. 24 letter from the council’s attorneys describing the request as exceedingly broad and estimating that review and production would require approximately 100 hours. AFL argues that the workload did not justify the preceding silence.

The state also challenges the council’s reliance on confidentiality provisions in its bylaws.

Those bylaws identify categories of confidential material, including solicited comments about applicants and unsolicited communications whose sources request confidentiality. The council grounds those protections in Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy.

The state argues that internal rules cannot settle whether records must be withheld under state law. Its brief cites Alaska Supreme Court decisions addressing access to information about candidates for high public office and calls for specific explanations supporting confidentiality claims.

The state acknowledges that some records can’t be released; medical and financial information may warrant protection, and some internal deliberations may be privileged.

The immediate question is whether AFL’s allegations are sufficient for the lawsuit to continue. The state asks the court to allow that challenge to proceed without deciding whether discrimination occurred or ordering disclosure of any particular document.