Abstract
This Article compares the equal protection analysis of the United States Supreme Court with the equal protection analysis of the Alaska Supreme Court. It first looks at the federal equal protection doctrine and the various levels of scrutiny employed by the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of government action. The conclusion of the federal analysis is that, no matter which level of scrutiny the Court uses, its ultimate goal is always a means-end inquiry designed to test the government's asserted purpose in enacting the law. Next, the Article looks at Alaska's "sliding scale" approach to equal protection and contends that this approach results in an arbitrary amount of deference being given to the legislature in a common law fashion. The Article concludes by recommending future study of other state courts to determine if state constitutional law actually offers a worthwhile complement to federal constitutional law.