Court Opinion

ID: 9528581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:42:11.921786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:03.817308
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, Justice,
dissenting.
Last year, in State v. Brown, 794 P.2d 108 (Alaska 1990), this court held that by passing the Claims Against the State Act (CATSA), AS 09.50.250, the state had waived its sovereign immunity against federal Jones Act claims made by state employees, notwithstanding the exclusive remedy provisions of the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA), AS 23.30.055. In dissent, I expressed the view that the enactment of CATSA was no,t meant to abrogate the effect of the more limited waiver of sovereign immunity in AWCA, and that AWCA provided the exclusive remedy for injured state employees.
Today the court goes one step further, invalidating a fairly bargained union labor contract entered into between the State of Alaska and certain state employees, in accordance with authority conferred by state statute. The court effectively says not only that the state waived its sovereign immunity as far as Jones Act liability is concerned, but also that the state may never immunize itself from such liability, either through statute or negotiation. For the reasons expressed in my prior dissent, Brown, 794 P.2d at 111, and because I believe that this court now shows an even *1377greater willingness to sacrifice state sovereignty to federal supremacy without a clear federal constitutional requirement that it do so, I must again dissent.