Case Summary
Issue:
Whether Congress may create race-based preferences for Native Hawaiians by legislative fiat, proclaiming them a political group with which the United States has a special and unique relationship, and thereby deprive the State of Hawaii of land given it in its statehood Enabling Act?
Plaintiff:
State of Hawai’i; Housing and Community Development Corporation of Hawaii (HCDCH); Robert J. Hall, in his capacity as Acting Executive Director of HCDCH; Charles Sted, Chair, Stephanie Aeiro, Francis L. Jung, Charles King, Lillian B. Koller, Betty Lou Larson, Theodore E. Liu, Travis Thompson, Taiaopo, Tuimaleialiifano, Members of the Board of Directors of HCDCH; Linda Lingle, in her capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaii
Defendant:
Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Rowena Akana, Haunani Apoliona, Dante Carpenter, Donald Cataluna, Linda Dela Cruz, Colette Machado, Boyd P. Mossman, Oswald Stender, and John Waihe’e, IV, in their official capacities as members of the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Pia Thomas Aluli; Jonathan Kamakawiwo’ole Osorio; Charles Ka’ai’ai; Keoki Maka Kamaka Ki’ili
Amicus Curiae:
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
Case History
In 1993, Congress adopted an “Apology Resolution” expressing regret to “Native Hawaiians” for the federal government’s role in ending the Hawaiian monarchy. There was one problem; almost every paragraph was either false or misleading, including that “Native Hawaiians” were the targets of any American mischief—in fact, since creation of the Hawaii Kingdom in 1810, there has never been a race-based government. Subsequently, armed with Congress’s Apology, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), which receives a portion of the income from state lands to benefit Native Hawaiians, challenged Hawaii’s affordable housing authority’s plan to use a 500-acre parcel in West Maui. By state law, OHA would receive 20 percent of the land’s value, almost $6 million. OHA refused the check; instead, it demanded a disclaimer on the deed that the conveyance did not waive or diminish Native Hawaiians’ claims to the land.
In December 2001, a trial court rejected OHA’s claim that the Apology Resolution bars Hawaii from selling its lands. In January 2008, Hawaii State Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the Resolution prohibits the State from selling, exchanging, or transferring 1.2 million acres of State land—almost all of the State’s land and nearly one-third of Hawaii—until it reaches a political settlement on the “unrelinquished [land] claims” of native Hawaiians.
On October 1, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Hawaii’s petition for review. On December 4, 2008, the State of Hawaii filed its opening brief on the merits of the case. On December 11, 2008, MSLF filed its friend of the court brief in support of the State. On January 22, 2009, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs filed its response brief. On February 6, 2009, the State of Hawaii filed its reply brief. Oral argument was held on February 25, 2009.