Opinion ID: 2449099
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Latham's Claims For Declaratory Judgment Are Barred By Discretionary Immunity.

Text: To the extent that Latham's claims seek declaratory judgment rather than damages, and thus may not be barred by collateral estoppel, they are barred by the state's discretionary immunity. The Alaska Tort Claims Act (ATCA) partially preserves the state's sovereign immunity by providing that an action may not be brought if the claim. . . is an action for tort, and is based upon an act or omission of an employee of the state, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not the statute or regulation is valid; or is an action for tort, and based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty. [12] We have previously held that a defendant's immunity will bar a claim seeking declaratory relief. [13] We do so again here. We conclude that Latham's declaratory judgment claim is an action for tort and that the government acts he challenges involved the performance of a discretionary function within the meaning of the ATCA. Latham never disputes that his claim is a tort action, and his pursuit of punitive damages labels his claim as tort-based. [14] As for the government acts he challenges, Latham alleges that the failure of Governor Palin and Attorney General Colberg to challenge the 1995 change violated his constitutional rights. We have held that discretionary immunity protects government decisions entailing planning or policy formation. [15] In State v. Abbott, we adopted the planning-operational test to determine whether a state act or omission was discretionary or not. [16] In Abbott, we explained the difference between acts that involve planning and acts that are operational: The planning level notion refers to decisions involving questions of policy, that is, the evaluation of factors such as the financial, political, economic, and social effects of a given plan or policy. . . . The operations level decision, on the other hand, involves decisions relating to the normal day-by-day operations of the government. [17] Acts of planning are entitled to discretionary immunity; operational acts are not. Any decision by Governor Palin, and her appointee Attorney General Colberg, was an act of planning. A decision not to challenge the 1995 law was a high-level policy choice. It was not the execution of day-to-day operations of government. We have held that such a policy judgment and decision is discretionary. [18] Any decision by Governor Palin and Attorney General Colberg not to challenge the 1995 law was a policy judgment on the merits of the 1995 law. Their decision was therefore discretionary within the meaning of the ATCA.