Opinion ID: 2582501
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The implementing regulation in place when this action was commenced, 15 AAC 23.153 (repealed), was unconstitutional.

Text: The superior court did not address, and was not required to address, the constitutionality of either the repealed regulation or the emergency regulation. The parties do not dispute that the now-repealed implementing regulation, 15 AAC 23.153, in effect when this action was commenced, was unconstitutional. We agree that the repealed regulation was unconstitutional because it improperly excluded some legal aliens who were not precluded under federal law from forming the intent to remain required for PFD eligibility. During the pendency of this litigation, the department reassessed its interpretation of AS 43.23.005(a)(5)(B) to comport with federal and state law. [109] We recognize that the constitutional challenge raised by the class instigated the department's reassessment and that the class was thus successful on the main issue of the actionthat nonrestricted nonimmigrant aliens may be able to form the intent to remain in Alaska indefinitely and thus meet that PFD eligibility requirement. [110] The department enacted an emergency regulation that appears to construe the language of AS 43.23.005(a)(5)(B) in accord with both the PFD requirements and federal immigration law; however, the emergency regulation was allowed to expire. Because the emergency regulation was not in effect when the Andrade's PFD application was denied, because the parties did not argue the validity of the emergency regulation below, and because the emergency regulation is not now in effect, we decline to decide its constitutional validity at this time.