Opinion ID: 2334960
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The State is immune from state constitutional torts arising out of an assault or battery.

Text: Article II, section 21 of the Alaska Constitution provides that [t]he legislature shall establish procedures for suits against the State. In Glover v. State, Department of Transportation, Alaska Marine Highway System, [64] we held that article II waived the State's absolute immunity, and that the legislature may specify the circumstances under which the [S]tate's less-than-absolute sovereign immunity will apply. [65] Citing to article II and Glover, Heisey claims that the default rule in Alaska is that the State is liable for its wrongs, and exceptions to liability must be carved out by statute. A violation of constitutional rights is a form of tort, as noted by Adkins v. Stansel. [66] As AS 09.50.250 does not enumerate constitutional torts among the torts the State is immune from, Heisey argues that the State is not immune from state constitutional tort claims. Heisey correctly observes that in Alaska, the government generally is liable for its wrongs, while immunity is the exception. Numerous cases have made this point. [67] But in AS 09.50.250(3) the legislature has recognized an exception. [68] We are not convinced that Heisey can evade the State's statutorily defined immunity simply by characterizing his claims as constitutional violations; we must look to the statute to understand whether the grant of immunity encompasses the particular constitutional violations alleged. In construing AS 09.50.250, we look for a construction that avoids absurdity and is consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the terms of the statute. [69] In this case, the State provides a reasonable interpretation that is truer to the statute's language and purpose. The plain language of AS 09.50.250 states, in relevant part: A person or corporation having a contract, quasi-contract, or tort claim against the state may bring an action against the state in a state court that has jurisdiction over the claim.... However, an action may not be brought if the claim . . . (3) arises out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights. Although any person alleging a tort claim against the state is authorized to bring a lawsuit against the State, claims that arise out of assault [or] battery are barred. If anyone alleging a constitutional tort claim is also subject to the limitations of this statute, then if the individual's claim arises out of assault or battery, it too would be barred. As a preliminary matter, then, we must address whether the statute contemplates constitutional torts in addition to common law torts. A constitutional tort is any action for damages for violation of a constitutional right against a government or individual defendants. [70] Constitutional torts have been recognized in the United States since at least the late 1800s, when the Civil Rights Act of 1871 authorized civil damage actions against [e]very person who, under color of [law] ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. [71] Because the word tort in AS 09.50.250 is unmodified, the plain language of AS 09.50.250 supports the State's contention that constitutional torts are included within the State's immunity. Additional evidence is provided by AS 09.50.253(a) and (f), which were enacted at the same time as AS 09.50.250. [72] These sections provide: (a) Except as provided in (f) of this section, the remedy against the state provided by AS 09.50.250 for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death arising or resulting from an act or omission of a state employee while acting within the scope of the employee's office or employment is exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding for money damages by reason of the same subject matter against the employee whose act or omission gave rise to the claim or against the estate of the employee. Any other civil action or proceeding for money damages arising out of or relating to the same subject matter against the employee or the employee's estate is precluded without regard to when the act or omission occurred. . . . . (f) This section does not extend or apply to a civil action or proceeding against an employee of the state that is brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States or that is brought for a violation of a law of the state under which an action or proceeding against an employee is expressly authorized.[ [73] ] By the statute's terms, the Alaska legislature made AS 09.50.250 the exclusive remedy for tort claims against the State, except for alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution that is, federal constitutional torts. There is no exception, however, for state constitutional torts. Because AS 09.50.250 provides the exclusive remedy for actions against state employees alleging state constitutional violations, it bars state constitutional torts arising out of a claim for assault or battery as well. We conclude that AS 09.50.250 encompasses state constitutional torts. A claim for a state constitutional violation arising out of an assault or battery is therefore also barred by the State's immunity.