Opinion ID: 2518074
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Differences in treatment among commercial users

Text: Even if DNR is justified in treating commercial and private users differently, Alaska Riverways argues that DNR is treating it differently from other commercial users who are not necessarily tourist operations by not requiring these other commercial operations to enter into a lease. Instead of citing specific examples, Alaska Riverways asks us whether DNR [is] requiring a lease of every marina, port, fish processing plant, freight hauler, hunting or fishing lodge, or other commercial operation, suggesting that if not, DNR's lease decision would violate Alaska Riverways' equal protection rights. But it is Alaska Riverways, not DNR or this court, that bears the initial burden of identifying specific similarly situated users of state land that are not being required to enter into a lease. Alaska Riverways did not identify to the superior court any commercial operations similar in size that have not entered into a lease with DNR. Nor would such evidence alone be sufficient to make out an equal protection claim. Alaska Riverways further bears the burden of demonstrating that DNR's [s]elective enforcement of the leasing statute is part of a deliberate and intentional plan to discriminate based on an arbitrary or unjustifiable classification. [94] It failed to present any such evidence. DNR, while acknowledging that historically [it] has not authorized every commercial business with a dock, contends that this has been due to insufficient resources to address all uses occurring on state land rather than purposeful discrimination. An agency need notindeed, often cannotapply a statute simultaneously to all similarly situated parties to avoid violating the equal protection clause so long as it is not intentionally discriminating against any party. Because Alaska Riverways has failed to produce evidence showing that DNR does not require leases of other similarly situated commercial users and suggesting that DNR's selective application of the leasing statute to Alaska Riverways constitutes intentional discrimination, we hold that Alaska Riverways has failed to establish a violation of its equal protection rights. [95]