Posts

Showing posts with the label justiciability

HSC Trashes “Gut and Replace,” Enters Thicket

  League of Women Voters of Honolulu v. Hawai'i (HSC November 4, 2021) Background. In 2018, the Hawai'i State Senate introduced a bill, S.B. 2858. The Bill proposed to amend sections of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 353 by requiring the Department of Public Safety to prepare annual reports to the Legislature about the rehabilitation of people released from prison. The purpose of the report was to collect data on recidivism rates. Aside from minor amendments, the bill passed three readings in the Senate and crossed over to the House, where it passed its first reading.   At a hearing on the House Committee on Public Safety, the Department of Public Safety, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, various action committees like the Hawai'i Justice Coalition, the Community Alliance on Prisons, Young Progressive Demanding Action, and the ACLU along with individual people testified. Although most of the testifiers supported the bill, the House Committee recommended amendin...

One Constitutional Provision: Three Political Questions, One non-Political

Background. A group of people brought a lawsuit against the State's Director of Finance, the State, the Hawaiian Homes Commission, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and other related officials. The lawsuit alleged a constitutional violation of the duty to sufficiently fund the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. The complaint prayed for injunctive relief by ordering sufficient funds. The State filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the complaint raised a political question and the issue could not be resolved by the courts. The circuit court granted the motion and the ICA affirmed . The HSC granted certiorari. The Political Question Doctrine. Hawai'i adopted the political question doctrine from Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186 (1962): Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found (1) a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or (2) a lack of judicially discover...

No Motion, No Good Cause, No Jurisdiction (Even if you do Rely on the Order Extending time to file)

Cabral v. State (ICA July 28, 2011) OVERRULED! Background. The Cabrals and other plaintiffs sued Joni Scott and the State of Hawai'i. The lawsuit stems from a fatal car accident on Highway 11 on the Big Island . The plaintiffs settled with Scott, but proceeded to a bench trial against the State. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of the State and dismissed all remaining claims on April 20, 2007. Ten days later, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. The circuit court denied the motion on June 7, 2007. On July 6, 2007, the parties submitted a one-page stipulation for a two-week extension to file a notice of appeal. The circuit court approved and ordered the extension. The stipulation did not assert any of the grounds for the extension and the circuit court approved the stipulation without making any findings. On July 18, 2007, the plaintiffs presented an ex-parte motion to extend time for filing a notice of appeal on the grounds that the partie...

Political Questions: all six or just two?

OVERRULED (in part)! Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Commission (ICA January 12, 2011) Background. Richard Nelson and six others filed a lawsuit against the State seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. In their complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that there were thousands of people on the waiting lists for Hawaiian Home Lands lots and that some have waited for decades. Plaintiffs also alleged that the State did not appropriate any funds from the general revenue to the operating budge for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) until 1987. In 1994, the legislature enacted a law authorizing payment to DHHL of $30 million per year for 20 years. However, between 1989 through 2007, the State funding for the DHHL never exceeded 0.5% of the State budget. The Plaintiffs argued that the Hawai'i Constitution required funding for the DHHL and that as trustees, the Hawaiian Home Commission breached its fiduciary duty in not seeking appropriations from the legislature. The circ...

When a Right of Action Derives from the Constitution . . .

County of Hawai'i v. Ala Loop Homeowners et al. (HSC July 9, 2010) Background. Waiola Waters of Life Charter School, a "new century" charter school pursuant to HRS chapter 302A, acquired a 28-acre farm on Ala Loop Road near Kurtistown on the Big Island. Waiola intended on keeping the farm, but was also going to use it as a campus. Concerned residents formed the Ala Loop Association wrote to the County. The County and the State took the position that HRS § 302A-1184 exempted Waiola from state zoning laws in HRS 205, but did not exempt county zoning laws. Ala Loop argued that a special use permit pursuant to HRS § 205-A, the Land Use Commission rules, and county zoning laws were required. The County filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Ala Loop and Waiola to determine the applicability of state and county zoning laws. Ala Loop filed a counter claim against the County and a cross-claim against Waiola. Waiola tried to get the Attorney General's Office to rep...

HSC Splinters on when to Guide Lower Courts or Tribunals.

Kapuwai v. City and County of Honolulu (HSC July 16, 2009) Background. Kapuwai was injured on the job and brought a worker's compensation claim against his employer, the City. The City accepted responsibility. Later a doctor determined that Kapuwai suffered permanent disfigurement. After a hearing, a hearings officer concluded that the City had to pay additional amounts for the permanent disfigurement. The City appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Board (LIRAB), which modified the decision. Kapuwai appealed to the ICA. The ICA held that Kapuwai was entitled to relief that was not provided by the LIRAB if he would be able to prevail in proving certain findings before the LIRAB. The ICA, therefore, vacated the LIRAB's decision and remanded. The ICA also addressed the issue of attorney's fees. Kapuwai argued that the LIRAB erred in concluding that he was not entitled to attorney's fees. The ICA recognized that it could not decide the issue because...