Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox, with Goov. Mike Dunleavy, speaks at a Feb. 12, 2026, news conference in Anchorage about drug enforcement. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
State lawmakers raised concerns in a series of legislative hearings while they considered the confirmation of Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s attorney general designee Stephen Cox. At issue were controversial legal actions Cox took in his first eight months in office.
Cox is an attorney and has served in various roles in federal law enforcement, including as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas and other roles in the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, as well as in private industry in Texas and Alaska, according to his resume. Cox is a member of the Federalist Society, a national conservative and libertarian legal organization. Prior to being appointed, he worked as legal counsel for Bristol Bay Industrial, LLC, a holding company and investment subsidiary of the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, since 2021.
Dunleavy appointed Cox to the Attorney General’s office in August, after Treg Taylor resigned to run for governor. Cox appeared before lawmakers in Senate and House confirmation committees ahead of a joint session to vote on his appointment next week.
While in Alaska’s top legal post, Cox has taken several controversial actions lawmakers questioned. He defended handing over Alaska’s private voter information at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice, which has prompted a lawsuit by civil rights groups. Cox and the Alaska Department of Law also joined over 110 amicus briefs, or “friends of the court briefs” on a wide variety of federal and state cases, including U.S. Supreme Court cases.
Some lawmakers raised concerns that Cox has taken legal positions with amicus briefs that were highly politicized, aligned with the Trump administration and in some cases contrary to Alaska law and unrelated to Alaskans interests.
That included joining Alaska in cases opposing birthright citizenship, supporting a Christian baker declining to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, and supporting the most recent case where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s congressional maps cannot be drawn based on race — a decision critics say effectively limits the Voting Rights Act.
Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, asked why Cox had signed Alaska on to challenge birthright citizenship, which the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to decide in June. Stevens became emotional, saying it was a fundamental value to provide refuge to people fleeing war and poverty, or seeking better opportunities — like his own ancestors who escaped the Irish famine.
“It just baffles me. How can you or your department or anyone in the administration argue against birthright citizenship? It’s in our Constitution. It’s a moral issue,” Stevens said.
Cox said he believes that birthright citizenship should not be granted for children of those visiting or temporarily in the United States, but only for those who intend to stay.
“My view of the Constitution under the 14th Amendment is that it is not simply birth on the territory, that you also have to be not subject to the foreign jurisdiction, and that there has to be some kind of allegiance,” Cox replied.
“But I also recognize, like everything, I could be wrong,” he added. “But again, we will hear what the US Supreme Court decides on that issue.”
Lawmakers in the Senate Judiciary and State Affairs Committees pressed Cox on his reason for signing on to cases that they said would be contrary to Alaskan’s interests.
Sen. Matt Claman, D-Anchorage, asked if Cox would sign on to cases challenging abortion rights in another state, while Alaska’s Constitution protects the right to abortion within the right to privacy.
“What is your perspective with respect to filing amicus briefs and requests for amicus briefs regarding the right to abortion, that the courts have found is specifically protected in Alaska?” Claman asked.
After several minutes of back and forth, Cox finally said he would have to consider the specific case and consult with the governor.
“I would look hard at the law. I would consult the experts within the Department of Law. I would get their expertise. If I felt that the state of Alaska did not have an interest, I wouldn’t bring it,” he said. “If I thought that there was an interest in that the state of Alaska did have, notwithstanding what the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled in in its prior cases, I would have a conversation with the governor.”
Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, questioned Cox on why he didn’t oppose a lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court that would require mail-in ballots to be received by Election Day, which would be a challenge for many rural Alaska precincts. Alaska law currently allows ballots to be received within 10 days, or 15 days if mailed overseas.
“Why didn’t you stand up for Alaska and say to the court: this is a bad law for Alaska. We want you to strike this down. We want you to say no to this,” Wielechowski said.
Cox defended the decision to submit an amicus brief declaring no support for either party as a “strategic choice.”
“I actually like briefs in support of neither party that are very fact-based. And I think, and again, I realize people might disagree, but I think sometimes they get noticed the most, but that was a strategic choice,” he said.
Lawmakers also questioned the time and resources expended by the Alaska Department of Law on amicus briefs, versus prosecutions and law enforcement in Alaska. “Why would we spend that money when we have this crisis on domestic violence and sexual assault, when that money is better spent on prosecution in state?” Claman asked.
Cox defended the initiative, and the creation of a new Alaska State Solicitor General role focused on multistate litigation in October. He said his goal in office is to pursue more amicus briefs.
“Going forward, I’d like Alaska to take more of a leadership role, offering more of our own briefs, and shaping the arguments directly, as opposed to just being a joiner,” he told lawmakers.
Senators question Cox on sharing confidential voter information
Several senators questioned Cox on his role in the Dunleavy’s administration’s decision to share confidential voter information at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice last year. Critics and plaintiffs in new lawsuit against the state say the sharing of voter information — including full name, birth dates and partial social security numbers — was a violation of voters’ privacy. The state also signed an agreement to remove voters the DOJ flags as ineligible.
Cox said he believed the request was lawful, and noted the federal government had threatened to sue.
“One, was there a statute that authorized disclosure of confidential information? There was, for lawful government purposes,” Cox said. “And two, we took the posture of cooperation. Alaska has a long standing history of cooperating with the U.S. Department (of Justice) Civil Rights Division.”
“And I will be candid with you,” he added. “I have a disposition of cooperating with law enforcement.”
Sen. Scott Kawasaki, D-Fairbanks, pressed Cox on the decision to share the voter information, which he and other lawmakers stressed is protected by Alaska’s Constitution.
“The state also has a constitutional right of privacy. It’s one of the, I think, bedrocks and one of the most important things I think some people recognize in the state constitution,” Kawasaki said. “Why was that not your first thought, is that Alaska has got a constitutional right to privacy. Let’s take a pause before we do anything more that the Department of Justice has requested?”
Cox defended the decision as lawful: “I will concede I am learning about the right to privacy. And the Legislature has far better expertise on the right to privacy,” Cox said. “And the law department’s position is that that statute is a valid statute and that it is not unconstitutional.”
Sen. Jesse Bjorkman, R-Kenai, also questioned the purpose of sharing Alaska’s voter information, which Cox defended as under “lawful government purpose” in the agreement. But Bjorkman raised doubts that the reasons the federal government may deem voters to be ineligible is clear.
“If we are releasing the data for a lawful purpose, but we can’t positively identify what the purpose is, and then judge that according to whether or not it is indeed lawful,” Bjorkman said. “I have a concern about that.”
Cox outlines AG office priorities
Cox told lawmakers that while in the Attorney General’s office his priorities include a new “quality of life” initiative working with the municipality of Anchorage to prosecute retail theft and public disorder infractions.
“We’ve cross-designated prosecutors so that state and municipal attorneys can use each other’s authorities. We’re looking at civil tools like abatement actions to go after drug houses or even using data from retailers to identify patterns and repeat offenders,” he said.
Cox said prosecuting violent crime like domestic violence and sexual assault is always the No. 1 priority of the office, and added he’s focused on resource development and consumer protection as well.
“Alaska has some of the strongest consumer protection laws in the country, and I think we can be enforcing them more aggressively,” he said.
“At bottom, this job is about the rule of law, what the law requires, how it is applied and how we exercise the state’s power within those limits. I’ve spent much of my career in law enforcement settings where the stakes are real. Decisions affect liberty, public safety and public trust. That experience shapes how I approach this office,” he said.
Cox is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Monday. A joint session on state appointments was scheduled for May 7 but was postponed and likely will be set for early next week.
