Opinion ID: 1265792
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sliding scale of review

Text: CFJ argues that AS 23.30.095(c) and 8 AAC 45.082(f) and (g) violate Article I, section 1 of the Alaska Constitution because they unlawfully discriminate against chiropractors. [8] Because Alaska's equal protection clause may be more protective of individual rights than the federal equal protection clause, the analysis here will focus on the state constitution. See State v. Anthony, 810 P.2d 155, 157 (Alaska 1991); Sonneman v. Knight, 790 P.2d 702, 706 (Alaska 1990). In analyzing equal protection issues, we employ a sliding scale of review ranging from relaxed scrutiny to strict scrutiny. State v. Ostrosky, 667 P.2d 1184, 1192-93 (Alaska 1983). In applying the sliding scale analysis, this court proceeds through three distinct analytic stages: First, it must be determined at the outset what weight should be afforded the constitutional interest impaired by the challenged enactment. The nature of this interest is the most important variable in fixing the appropriate level of review... . Depending upon the primacy of the interest involved, the state will have a greater or lesser burden in justifying its legislation. Second, an examination must be undertaken of the purposes served by a challenged statute. Depending on the level of review determined, the state may be required to show only that its objectives were legitimate, at the low end of the continuum, or, at the high end of the scale, that the legislation was motivated by a compelling state interest. Third, an evaluation of the state's interest in the particular means employed to further its goals must be undertaken. Once again, the state's burden will differ in accordance with the determination of the level of scrutiny under the first stage of analysis. At the low end of the sliding scale, we have held that a substantial relationship between the means and the ends is constitutionally adequate. At the higher end of the scale, the fit between means and ends must be much closer. Alaska Pacific Assur. Co. v. Brown, 687 P.2d 264, 269-70 (Alaska 1984) (citations omitted).