ANCHORAGE — Acting Alaska Attorney General Cori Mills has asked a court to compel the Alaska Judicial Council to produce records related to its use of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) standards in the judicial selection process, filing an amicus brief in the case American First Legal Foundation v. Alaska Judicial Council on Oct. 20.
Request, delay and litigation
The records request at the center of the dispute seeks materials about how the Council considers DEI in evaluating applicants for judicial office, including scoring criteria, applicant evaluations and communications that might show whether demographic considerations influence selection decisions.
According to the brief, the Council acknowledged receipt of the public records request but, after 89 days, had provided only a confirmation of receipt and no substantive response, production, extension notice or estimated completion date. American First Legal sued the Council on Sept. 2, 2026, prompting the state’s filing as a friend of the court.
Why the attorney general intervened
The brief argues the Alaska Judicial Council wields what the attorney general describes as "extraordinary gatekeeping authority" over the state’s judiciary because the Council screens and produces the pool of nominees from which the governor may select judges. If the Council excludes an applicant, the governor reportedly cannot appoint that person regardless of qualifications.
“Transparency serves the Council as much as anyone. If AFL’s concerns are unfounded, the records will show it, and public confidence in the merit selection system will be stronger for the showing,”
The brief contends that public access to the requested records could demonstrate whether the Council is applying "lawful, merit-based criteria" or whether other considerations are at play.
Council’s stance and constitutional argument
The Judicial Council, which administers the merit-selection process for Alaska’s judiciary, has described itself in its bylaws as committed to making "every effort to promote diversity, including gender and ethnic diversity." The Council, the brief notes, characterizes itself as an "independent constitutional" body, a position suggesting it may not be subject to the same oversight as executive-branch agencies.
American First Legal challenges that notion in its suit, arguing the Council is not outside the reach of the Alaska Public Records Act and must respond to requests for documents related to its selection practices.
What the records could show
The attorney general’s filing identifies types of documents it says could clarify the Council’s methods and bolster public trust if the Council’s practices are legally grounded. Those records include:
- Scoring criteria used to evaluate applicants.
- Individual applicant evaluations and rankings.
- Communications regarding demographic considerations and how they factor into decisions.
The brief emphasizes that disclosure could resolve allegations without prolonged litigation if the records confirm merit-based assessment.
Timeline
| Event | Date |
|---|---|
| Public records request acknowledged | (Date not specified in brief) |
| 89 days with no substantive response | Leading up to Sept. 2, 2026 |
| Lawsuit filed by American First Legal | Sept. 2, 2026 |
| Acting AG files amicus brief | Oct. 20, 2026 |
Broader implications
The dispute touches on competing priorities: the public’s interest in transparency about how judges are chosen and the Council’s assertion of institutional independence in administering merit selection. Because the Council’s screening effectively determines the pool of candidates available to the governor, the case raises questions about accountability at a pivotal stage in judicial appointments.
Legal observers say the outcome could affect future public-records requests for other constitutionally created or quasi-independent state bodies. If courts require the Council to disclose internal evaluations and communications, it may set a precedent increasing transparency. Conversely, if the Council’s independence is upheld as a shield from APRA, it could limit public oversight of judicial selection.
The case is pending. The parties have not publicly disclosed any settlement or timetable for producing the requested records. The attorney general’s brief frames the issue in terms of public confidence: transparency, it argues, benefits both the Council and Alaskans by resolving uncertainty about how judges are evaluated.
Erik Lindgren, State Correspondent
