SHORTELL LAW LLC
Caitlin Shortell ABA # 0401025
911 W. 8th Avenue, Suite 204
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 272-8181
Facsimile: 1 (888) 979-6148
cs.sgalaw@gmail.com
Heather Gardner ABA # 0111079
4141 B Street, Suite 410
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 375-8776
Facsimile: 1 (888) 526-6608
hgardnerlaw@gmail.com
Counsel for Denali Nicole Smith
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
DENALI NICOLE SMITH, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
MICHAEL DUNLEAVY, in his official
capacity of Governor of the State of Alaska,
KEVIN CLARKSON, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of Alaska,
BRUCE TANGEMAN, in his official capacity
as Commissioner of the State of Alaska,
Department of Revenue, ANNE WESKE, in her
official capacity as Director of the Permanent
Fund Division, State of Alaska, Department of
Revenue,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-

COMPLAINT
I.

INTRODUCTION

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 22

1

 Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, hereby complains and alleges
as follows:

1.

This is an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02

for damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief against the Governor of the State of
Alaska, Michael Dunleavy; the Attorney General of the State of Alaska, Kevin Clarkson;
the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Revenue, Bruce Tangeman; and the
Director of the State of Alaska, Department of Revenue, Permanent Fund Division, Anne
Weske.
2.

This is also an action to restore and affirm the civil liberties, individual

rights, and equal protection under the law otherwise guaranteed by the Alaska
Constitution, United States constitution, and Alaska law to each and all of its citizens.
3.

Plaintiff brings this action to stop the state from its unlawful enforcement of

previously enjoined statutes, which excluded same-sex couples from marriage and
prevents the State of Alaska from recognizing valid same-sex marriages entered into
elsewhere. In Hamby v. Parnell, Case No. 3:14-cv-00089-TMB, 56 F.Supp.3d 1056 (D.
Alaska 2014), this court declared that the referenced Alaska Statutes violate the equal
protection and due process rights of Plaintiff guaranteed by the United States Constitution
and entered an injunction 1) barring Defendants from enforcing Alaska Stat. §§
25.05.011-.013 and other statutes violating Plaintiff’s right to equal protection and due
process, 2) requiring Defendants to authorize and issue marriage licenses to unmarried

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 2 of 22

2

 Plaintiff and all those similarly situated and 3) to extend legal recognition under state law
to the existing marriages of Plaintiffs lawfully married elsewhere and all those similarly
situated.
4.

After the court issued the order of declaratory relief and a permanent

injunction, the State of Alaska continued to enforce the referenced statutes, explicitly
denying Plaintiff and other Alaska residents who were accompanying spouses of Alaska
residents in military service outside the state in same sex marriages their permanent fund
dividends on the basis of Alaska Stat. §§ 25.05.011-.013. Specifically, as to Plaintiff
Denali Smith, the State of Alaska denied Plaintiff’s eligibility for the 2019 Permanent
Fund Dividend (hereinafter “PFD”) because she is a woman married to a woman who is a
member of the Armed Forces of the United States who would, if married to a male
member of the Armed Forces of the United States, be categorically eligible for the 2019
PFD.
5.

On information and belief, Plaintiff is not the only person against whom the

State of Alaska has applied, and/or enforced, statutes that it was permanently enjoined
from enforcing under the explicit order of this court in Hamby v. Parnell, and that are
also unenforceable as violative of Plaintiff’s and similarly situated persons’ rights to due
process and equal protection under the law as established by subsequent case law.

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 3 of 22

3

 II. JURISDICTION
6.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska has jurisdiction over this

matter under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343 because it raises a federal question under 42
U.S.C. §1983 and under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
7.

At all times relevant, all Plaintiff named was and is a resident of Alaska,

within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.
8.

At all times relevant, Defendants were Alaska residents performing their

official duties under color of state law as elected or appointed officials of the State of
Alaska.
9.

Venue is appropriate in the District of Alaska under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)

because the Defendants perform their official duties, including those complained of
herein, within the District’s geographical boundaries.
10.

This court has authority to enter a declaratory judgment and permanent

injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
28 U.S.C. §§2201 -02.
11.

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, brings this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, 28 U.S.C. §1331and §1343 for damages, declaratory
and injunctive relief against Defendants, and for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1988.

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 4 of 22

4

 12.

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks: a) a declaration that Alaska’s denial of the

PFD to accompanying spouses of military members in same sex marriages based on
permanently enjoined Alaska Statutes prohibiting same sex couples from marrying and
prohibiting recognition of lawful out of state marriages of same sex couples violate the
Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution; and b) a permanent injunction (i) preventing Defendants, in
their official capacities from denying Plaintiff and other accompanying same sex spouses
of military members stationed outside the state of Alaska from receiving a PFD; (ii)
directing Defendants to authorize legal state recognition of the marriages of the married
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated that were validly entered into outside Alaska; and
(iii) directing Defendants to identify all individuals similarly situated to Plaintiff who
have been denied a PFD based on Alaska Stat. §§ 25.05.011-.013; and (iv) directing
Defendants to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated their PFDs denied based on
Alaska Stat. §§ 25.05.011-.013 without further delay.
III. PARTIES
A. Plaintiff
13.

Plaintiff DENALI NICOLE SMITH is a resident of the State of Alaska.

Denali was born and raised in Anchorage. Denali was recruited to play college softball in
California in 2014 and went to college in California in 2014.

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 5 of 22

5

 14.

In 2016, Denali returned to Anchorage and resided there. Denali is

registered to vote in Anchorage, Alaska, and has never been registered to vote in any
other jurisdiction.
15.

In 2018, Denali married Miranda Murphy, an Alaska resident who is a

member of the United States Armed Forces stationed in Jacksonville, Florida. After
marriage, Denali moved to Jacksonville, Florida to accompany Miranda at her station.
16.

Denali applied for and was denied her 2019 PFD in a written notice on the

basis of Alaska Stat. §§ 25.05.011-.013, because she was accompanying her same
military member sex spouse. PFD Division representatives also verbally explained to
Denali that if she were married to a man, she would not be denied her PFD. Although
Denali and Miranda were legally married in Florida on May 14, 2018, the State of Alaska
denied her eligibility for the 2019 PFD on the explicit basis that the referenced Alaska
Statutes prohibited recognition of their marriage or payment of the PFD to an
accompanying spouse of a military member in a same sex marriage.
B. Defendants
17.

Defendant MICHAEL DUNLEAVY is the Governor of the State of Alaska.

As governor, he is ultimately responsible for the execution of the laws of the State of
Alaska, including Alaska Stat. §§ 25.05.011-.013, and other statutes, regulations, and
policies that exclude same sex couples from marrying in Alaska or having their lawful
marriages recognized under Alaska law. He is sued in his official capacity.

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 6 of 22

6

 18.

Defendant KEVIN CLARKSON is the Attorney General of the State of

Alaska. As Attorney General he represents the State of Alaska and its executive branch
agencies via the Alaska Department of Law. The Attorney General also defends state
policy and actions in courts in Alaska and elsewhere, including filing amicus briefs in
against equal protection and due process for LGBT people. He is sued in his official
capacity.
19.

Defendant BRUCE TANGEMAN is the Commissioner of the Alaska

Department of Revenue. He was appointed by the governor to oversee the executive
branch agency that includes the Division of the Permanent Fund Dividend, the agency
authorized to determine eligibility and issue PFDs in Alaska. He is sued in his official
capacity.
20.

Defendant ANNE WESKE is the Director of the Division of the Permanent

Fund of the Alaska Department of Revenue. She is responsible for setting policy on
eligibility determinations and issuance of the Permanent Fund Dividend. She is sued in
her official capacity.
21.

Defendants, through their respective duties and obligations, are responsible

for enforcement of permanently enjoined Alaska laws that bar same sex couples from
marrying in Alaska, deny recognition of the valid out of state marriages of same sex
couples, and denying the benefits of marriage, to Alaska residents.

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 7 of 22

7

 22.

Each Defendant has caused the harm alleged herein, and will continue to

harm Plaintiff and those similarly situated unless enjoined. Therefore, the relief sought is
against all Defendants, as well as their designees, officers, employees and agents.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
23.

Article 1, § 25 of the Alaska Constitution, adopted in 1998, barred the state

from recognizing or treating as valid any same sex marriage, as follows:
§ 25. Marriage
To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between
one man and one woman. Alaska Const. Art. 1 Sec. 25.
24.

Title 25 of Alaska Statutes explicitly defines marriage as limited to

opposite sex couples under state law. Prior to 1996, Alaska law did not define marriage
as a contract between opposite sex persons, and did not explicitly prohibit the issuance of
a marriage license to a same sex couples.
25.

Alaska Statute § 25.05.011 was amended in 1996 and provides as follows:

Sec. 25.05.011. Civil contract.
(a) Marriage is a civil contract entered into by one man and one woman
that requires both a license and solemnization. The man and the woman
must each be at least one of the following:
(1) 18 years of age or older and otherwise capable;
(2) qualified for a license under Alaska Stat. § 25.05.171; or

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 8 of 22

8

 (3) a member of the armed forces of the United States while on
active duty.
(b) A person may not be joined in marriage in this state until a
license has been obtained for that purpose as provided in this chapter. A
marriage performed in this state is not valid without solemnization as
provided in this chapter.
26.

Alaska law also explicitly barred the recognition by the state of valid

same sex marriages and voids same sex marriages lawfully entered into elsewhere.
Alaska Stat. § 25.05.013, enacted as a new law in 1996, provides as follows:
Sec. 25.05.013. Same-sex marriages.
(a) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either
under common law or under statute, that is recognized by another state
or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state, and contractual rights granted
by virtue of the marriage, including its termination, are unenforceable in
this state.
(b) A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as
being entitled to the benefits of marriage.
27.

The United States government and the State of Alaska recognizes Denali

Smith’s marriage for purposes of taxation, veteran’s benefits, and other federal programs,
but the State of Alaska has continued to treat her as a legal stranger to her wife by

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 9 of 22

9

 denying her a PFD based on permanently enjoined Alaska Statutes. On information and
belief, the state of Alaska has denied other same sex accompanying spouses of military
members stationed out of state their PFDs based on the unconstitutional, enjoined Alaska
Statutes. Five years after this court issued a permanent injunction from enforcement of
the statutes, the State does not recognize the lawful marriages of same sex couples and
declares their marriages void under Alaska law.
28.

Denali Smith is lawfully married under the laws of sister states, but Alaska

refuses to recognize her same sex marriage as a basis to deny her a PFD. Unilaterally, and
in violation of order of this court and the Supreme Court of the United States of America,
Alaska has voided her legal status and rights and responsibilities as a married person.
29.

Explicitly in reference to Alaska Stat. §25.05.013(b), Defendants

single out accompanying same sex spouses, including Denali Smith, as not being entitled
to the benefits of marriage, while heterosexual accompanying spouses of military
members stationed out of state are granted the permanent fund dividend.
30.

Alaska’s persistent exclusion of same sex couples from marriage and

refusal to recognize existing marriages of same sex couples, going so far as to void those
marriages, harms the Plaintiff and other Alaska same sex couples and their families in
real and significant ways.
31.

Alaska’s exclusion of same sex couples from marriage and refusal to

recognize existing marriages, as well as its affirmative voiding of lawful marriages from

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 10 of 22

10

 sister states, undermines the Plaintiff’s and others’ similarly situated ability to achieve
their aspirations, disadvantages them financially, and denies them “dignity and status of
immense import.” U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2692 (2013). Plaintiff is stigmatized
and relegated to second class status by being barred from legal recognition of her
marriage in her home state. Alaska’s exclusion of Plaintiff and other accompanying same
sex spouses of military members from receipt of a PFD informs same sex couples and the
community that their committed relationships are unworthy of recognition.
32.

By singling out Denali Smith and other accompanying spouses of same sex

couples from receipt of a PFD, Alaska conveys to Plaintiff and others similarly situated
that their families are not equal to other Alaska residents who accompany their military
member spouses on duty.
33.

On October 12, 2014, this court declared unconstitutional and permanently

enjoined Alaska’s marriage laws that violated the Constitution’s mandate of equality and
due process. Hamby v. Parnell. 56 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (D. Alaska 2014).
34.

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States declared all such

laws unconstitutional nationwide and ordered the states to grant and recognize the right to
marry to same sex couples. Obergefell v. Hodges. 576 U.S. _____ (2015); 125 S.Ct. 2584
(2015).
35.

By denying Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, the routine

determination of eligibility for and payment of the PFD, Defendants ignored the

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 11 of 22

11

 decisions of this court and the Supreme Court of the United States and continued
enforcing these unconstitutional statutes as a basis for discrimination against same sex
spouses of military members stationed out of state.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
First Cause of Action
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Against All Defendants
Alaska’s Denial of a PFD to Accompanying Same Sex Spouses of Military Members
Stationed Out of State Deprives Plaintiff and Others Similarly Situated of their Rights to
Due Process of Law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
36.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.
37.

Plaintiff states this cause of action against all Defendants in their official

capacities for purposes of seeking damages, injunctive, and declaratory relief.
38.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, §1.
39.

The Alaska Constitution, Article 1, Section 25, Alaska Stat. §25.05.011,

Alaska Stat. §25.05.013, and all other sources of state law that preclude marriage for

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 12 of 22

12

 same sex couples or deny same sex married couples the full benefits available to opposite
sex couples under law, violate the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment
both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs.
40.

The right to marry the person of one’s choice and to direct the course of

one’s life without undue government restriction is one of the fundamental rights protected
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants’ actions to enforce
the marriage ban statutes, years after these laws were voided and permanently enjoined,
impermissibly infringe upon Plaintiff’s choices of whom to marry and interfere with a
fundamental and intimate personal choice.
41.

The Due Process Clause also protects choices central to personal dignity,

privacy, and autonomy, including each individual’s fundamental liberty interests in
family integrity and intimate association. Defendants’ actions to enforce the marriage ban
actions to enforce the marriage ban statutes after these laws have been voided and
permanently enjoined infringe upon Plaintiffs’ deeply intimate, personal, and private
decisions regarding family life, and preclude them from obtaining full liberty, dignity,
privacy, and security for themselves and their families.
42.

As Alaska’s governor, Defendant Dunleavy’s actions to stop enforcement

of Alaska’s exclusion of same sex couples from marriage, including those actions taken
pursuant to his responsibility for the policies and actions of the executive branch relating
to, for example and without limitation: the Permanent Fund Dividend Program, violate

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 13 of 22

13

 Plaintiff’s fundamental right to marry and fundamental interest in liberty, dignity,
privacy, autonomy, family integrity, and intimate association under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
43.

As Attorney General of the State of Alaska, Defendant Clarkson’s actions

to enforce Alaska’s exclusion of same sex couples from marriage, including
those actions taken pursuant to his responsibility for defending and providing legal advice
supporting the policies and actions of the executive branch relating to, for example and
without limitation: the Permanent Fund Dividend Program, violate Plaintiff’s
fundamental right to marry and fundamental interest in liberty, dignity, privacy,
autonomy, family integrity, and intimate association under the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
44.

As Commissioner of the State of Alaska, Department of Revenue,

Defendant Tangeman’s actions to enforce Alaska’s exclusion of same sex couples from
marriage, including those actions taken pursuant to his supervision of the Division of
Permanent Fund Dividend, the agency which denied Plaintiff and other accompanying
same sex spouses of military members a PFD on the basis of the unconstitutional and
permanently enjoined Alaska statutes banning same sex marriage and its recognition,
violate Plaintiff’s fundamental right to marry and fundamental interest in liberty, dignity,
privacy, autonomy, family integrity, and intimate association under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 14 of 22

14

 45.

As the Director of the State of Alaska, Division of the Permanent Fund,

Defendant Weske’s actions to continue enforcement of Alaska’s exclusion of same sex
couples from marriage by denying Plaintiff and other accompanying same sex spouses of
military members stationed out of state their PFDs, violate Plaintiff and others similarly
situated their fundamental right to marry and fundamental interest in liberty, dignity,
privacy, autonomy, family integrity, and intimate association under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
46.

Defendants cannot excuse their egregious continued enforcement of

marriage laws that this court - and the United States Supreme Court - held to violate the
fundamental right to marry and interference with fundamental liberty interests in liberty,
dignity, privacy, autonomy, family integrity, and intimate association.
47.

Defendants’ deprivation of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under color

of state law violates 42 U.S.C. §1983.
48.

Plaintiff and others similarly situated have no adequate remedy at law to

redress the wrongs alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature and which cause and
will continue to cause them irreparable harm.
49.

Plaintiff and others similarly situated are entitled to declaratory and

injunctive relief on this basis.

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 15 of 22

15

 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Against All Defendants
Alaska’s Unequal Treatment of Same Sex Married Couples Deprives Plaintiff and Those
Similarly Situated of Her (Their) Rights to Equal Protection of the Laws Under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
50.

Plaintiff incorporates by references all of the above paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.
51.

Plaintiff states this cause of action against Defendants in their official

capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
52.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1.
53.

The Alaska Constitution, Article 1, Section 25, Alaska Stat. §25.05.011,

Alaska Stat. §25.05.013, and all other sources of state law that preclude marriage for
same sex couples violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment
both facially and as applied to Plaintiff. The conduct of the Defendants in continuing to
enforce these laws violates the right of Plaintiff and others similarly situated to equal
protection by discriminating impermissibly on the basis of sexual orientation and sex.
54.

As Alaska’s governor, Defendant Dunleavy’s actions to enforce

Alaska’s exclusion of same sex couples from marriage, including those actions taken
pursuant to his responsibility for the policies and actions of the executive branch relating

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 16 of 22

16

 to, for example and without limitation: the Permanent Fund Dividend, violate Plaintiff’s
and others’ similarly situated constitutional right to equal treatment, without regard to
sexual orientation or sex, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
55.

As Attorney General of the State of Alaska, Defendant Clarkson’s

actions to enforce Alaska’s exclusion of same sex couples from marriage, including those
actions taken pursuant to his responsibility for defending and providing legal advice
supporting the policies and actions of the executive branch relating to, for example and
without limitation: the Permanent Fund Dividend, violate Plaintiff and others’ similarly
situated constitutional right to equal treatment, without regard to sexual orientation or
sex, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
56.

As Commissioner of the State of Alaska, Department of Revenue,

Defendant Tangeman’s actions to enforce Alaska’s exclusion of same sex couples from
marriage, including those actions taken pursuant to his supervision of the Division of the
Permanent Fund Dividend, deprive Plaintiff and others similarly situated of their
constitutional right to equal treatment under the law by denying them a permanent fund
dividend because they are in a same sex marriage while granting a dividend to
heterosexual accompanying spouses of military members stationed out of state.
57.

Defendant Weske’s actions to enforce Alaska’s exclusion of same sex

couples from marriage, and deny accompanying same sex spouses of military members

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 17 of 22

17

 stationed out of state their PFDs, deprive Plaintiff and others similarly situated of their
constitutional right to equal treatment under the law.
58.

Alaska’s exclusion of same sex couples from recognition of their marriage

and the benefits of marriage, and Defendants’ actions to enforce that exclusion, deny
same sex couples equal dignity and respect, and deprive their families of a critical safety
net of rights and responsibilities. These laws brand same sex couples as second class
citizens through government imposed stigma, and also serve to foster private bias and
discrimination by instructing all persons with whom same sex couples interact, that their
relationships and families are less worthy than others. Alaska’s exclusion of same sex
couples reflects private moral disapproval and animus toward same sex couples.
59.

Same sex couples are similar to opposite sex couples in all of the

characteristics relevant to marriage. Like opposite sex couples, they make a commitment
to each other, build their lives together, create families together, plan their futures
together, and hope to grow old together, caring for each other physically, emotionally,
and financially.
60.

This case presents an actual controversy because Defendants’ denial of

PFDs to same sex spouses of military members stationed out of state has continued for
five years since this court permanently enjoined the enforcement of the referenced
statutes.
61.

Defendants continue to ignore and contravene the decisions of this court

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 18 of 22

18

 and the Supreme Court of the United States, violating Plaintiff’s rights to due process and
equal protection, warranting the issuance of a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§2201-2202 and under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65.
62.

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other Alaska residents accompanying

their spouses who are military members stationed outside the state of Alaska denied the
PFD, seeks injunctive relief to protect her constitutional rights and avoid the injuries
described above. An order enjoining Defendants would redress and prevent the
irreparable injuries to Plaintiff that have been identified, for which Plaintiff and others
similarly situated have no adequate remedy at law or in equity.
63.

The violation of this court’s October 12, 2014 Order and Injunction by the

State of Alaska in denying Plaintiff and others similarly situated the Permanent Fund
Dividend when accompanying same sex spouses of military members calls into question
whether the State of Alaska is otherwise continuing to enforce permanently enjoined
marriage laws as a basis to deny equal treatment of same sex couples.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this court to enter judgment:
A.

Declaring that denial of a PFD to an accompanying same sex spouse under

the Alaska laws barring recognition of marriages of Plaintiff same sex couples, including
Article 1, Section 25 of the Alaska Constitution, Alaska Stat. §§ 25.05.011-.013, and any
other sources of state law that deny recognition to and/or void the marriages of the

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 19 of 22

19

 Plaintiff and all those similarly situated, violates Plaintiff’s rights under the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution;
B.

Permanently enjoining denial of a PFD to an accompanying same sex

spouse via enforcement by Defendants of Article 1, Section 25 of the Alaska
Constitution, Alaska Stat. § 25.05.011-.013, and any other sources of state law to deny or
refuse recognition of and/or void the marriages of the married Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated;
C.

Requiring Defendants in their official capacities to permit the issuance of

PFD to Plaintiff and all those similarly situated who are accompanying same sex spouses
of a military member stationed out of state, pursuant to the same restrictions and
limitations applicable to opposite sex couples, and to recognize the marriages validly
entered into by Plaintiff and all those similarly situated;
D.

Requiring Defendants to identify all individuals who the State of Alaska

denied a PFD from 2014 to the present based on Article 1, Section 25 of the Alaska
Constitution, Alaska Stat. §§ 25.05.011-.013, and any other sources of state law banning
same sex marriage, recognition of same sex marriage, or excluding same sex married
couples from the benefits of marriage;
E.

Requiring Defendants to pay any and all individuals PFDs, plus interest, to

any individuals who were denied a PFD from 2014 to the present based on Article 1,

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 20 of 22

20

 Section 25 of the Alaska Constitution, Alaska Stat. §§ 25.05.011-.013, and any other
sources of state law banning same sex marriage, recognition of same sex marriage, or
excluding same sex married couples from the benefits of marriage;
F.

Requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff her 2019 PFD, applicable interest,

costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988;
G.

Requiring Defendants to identify any and all persons that have been denied

the right to marry, recognition of their marriage, or benefits of marriage based upon the
enjoined statutes since the date of the permanent injunction;
H.

Requiring Defendants to identify any additional Defendants who have, in

their official capacities as officers, agents, or employees of the State of Alaska, denied
the right to marry, the recognition of same sex marriage, or the benefits of marriage based
upon the enjoined statutes since the date of the permanent injunction in Hamby v.
Parnell;
I.

Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

J.

The declaratory and injunctive relief requested in this action is sought

against each Defendant, and all of them; and each Defendant’s officers, employees, and
agents, and against all persons acting in active concert or participation with any
Defendant, or under any Defendant’s supervision, direction, or control, whether direct or
indirect.

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 21 of 22

21

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 20th day of November 2019 at Anchorage,
Alaska.
By:

____________/s/_______________
Caitlin Shortell #0405027

By:

____________/s/_______________
Heather Gardner #0111079

Certificate of Service
I certify that a copy of the foregoing was served via Certified U.S. Mail on November 20, 2019
to the following:
Governor Michael Dunleavy
State of Alaska
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, AK 99811-0001
Attorney General Kevin Clarkson
State of Alaska, Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
Bruce Tangeman
Commissioner, State of Alaska, Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110400
Juneau, AK 99811-0400
Ann Weske
Director, State of Alaska, Department of Revenue
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
P.O. Box 110462
Juneau, AK 99811-0462
___/s/_________________
Heather Gardner

SMITH V. DUNLEAVY ET AL.
CASE NO.: 3:19-cvCOMPLAINT

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 22 of 22

22