Today, August 7, 2026, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a decision denying former Senator Lora Reinbold’s request for relief after the Alaska Legislature Select Committee on Legislative Ethics found her in violation of the Legislative Ethics Act. Reinbold had deleted public comments with which she disagreed from her social media page during her tenure in the legislature, prompting an investigation by the Legislative Ethics Committee.
In February 2021, an individual filed an ethics complaint with the Ethics Committee against Reinbold, alleging that Reinbold had violated the Legislative Ethics Act by blocking him on her Facebook page and deleting his comments. The Ethics Committee determined that an investigation was warranted and found Reinbold had violated the Legislative Ethics Act. The Ethics Committee cited AS 24.60.010(2), which requires that legislators “conduct the public’s business in a manner that preserves the integrity of the legislative process and avoids conflicts of interest or even appearances of conflicts of interest”; and AS 24.60.010(9), which requires that constituents “have unencumbered access to legislators about issues important to the state.”
The Ethics Committee did not sanction Sen. Reinbold but instructed her to “refrain from blocking members of the public from commenting on her legislative social media site(s) solely for expressing opinions in disagreement with her own.” Rather than allow the public to comment on her page without gatekeeping, she simply deactivated the account.
Reinbold then accused the Ethics Committee of politically weaponization, noting that the ethics complaint was filed around the same time Governor Mike Dunleavy sent the Senate a letter criticizing her for spreading misinformation about the State’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Reinbold requested a public hearing, but the Ethics Committee denied the request, seeing no further proceedings as necessary.
She then pursued legal action in the Superior Court, seeking a judicial declaration that the Ethics Committee had violated its own governing statutes and her right to due process. She also sought an injunction forcing the Committee to provide her its investigative materials and to hold a public hearing. The Superior Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of the “doctrine of legislative immunity and that [Reinbold] alleged no action by the State that could support the relief she sought.”
Reinbold then appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, which upheld the Superior Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court stated in its decision: “We affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. The doctrine of legislative immunity, enshrined in the Alaska Constitution, protects members of the legislature from litigation over the exercise of their official duties. These duties include creating rules of conduct for legislators and sanctioning them for noncompliance. The legislator’s claims that the Ethics Committee violated its governing statutes and her right to due process are subject to the doctrine of legislative immunity, and the court cannot adjudicate them. Therefore, the Superior Court did not err by dismissing these claims.”
According to a press release by Reinbold’s legal team, “By ruling that statutory violations are beyond the reach of any court, the Alaska Supreme Court closed the courthouse door, failed to uphold the law, and left legislators’ constitutional rights of fair legal due process protections completely unprotected.”
Following the Alaska Supreme Court’s decision, which upholds the clear constitutional right of legislative immunity, Reinbold’s legal team “is actively evaluating taking Reinbold v. State of Alaska and SCLE to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
