Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EASTAUGH, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
The State of Alaska and the Municipality of Anchorage offer valuable benefits to their employees’ spouses that they do not offer to then' unmarried employees’ domestic partners. Essentially all opposite-sex adult couples may marry and thus become eligible for these benefits. But no same-sex couple can ever become eligible for these benefits because same-sex couples may not marry in Alaska. 1 The spousal limitations in the benefits programs therefore affect public employees with same-sex domestic partners differently than public employees who are…
2Cases cited49 opinions
- Meyer v. NebraskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Boddie v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. FeeneySupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Loving v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Doe v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2008
- Procito v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
- Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLPAlaska Supreme Court · 2013
- State v. SchmidtAlaska Supreme Court · 2014
- Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2016
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.