Peter Metcalfe v. State of Alaska, Appellee

Summary

The court held that Metcalfe could not recover contract damages for the alleged impairment of his public-employee retirement rights because the appropriate remedy for an unconstitutional retirement-benefit change is preservation or restoration of the applicable benefits, not diminution-of-value damages. It held that his prospective declaratory and injunctive relief claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, although laches was the potentially applicable time-based defense and did not apply to the prospective claim. The court also held that the claim was ripe and remanded for the superior court to address the remaining declaratory-relief and class-action issues. Fabe, Chief Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have affirmed dismissal of the entire action because Metcalfe was no longer a retirement-system member when the statutory change occurred.