DOCSLIB.ORG

The Lum Court and Native Hawaiian Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Lum Court and Native Hawaiian Rights The Lum Court and Native Hawaiian Rights by Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie* I. INTRODUCTION Since Herman Lum became Chief Justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court in 1983, the court has issued relatively few opinions dealing with Native Hawaiian issues. Those few opinions may not be sufficient to allow a fair assessment of the Lum Court's attitude toward Native Hawaiian rights. Only five published decisions can be identified as dealing with "purely" Native Hawaiian issues. The rest, while brought by Hawaiians and affecting Native Hawaiian concerns are not strictly Hawaiian rights cases. The few cases heard and determined by the court indicate that the Lum Court is not receptive to Native Hawaiians rights. Indeed, none of the cases expands or advances those rights. With one important exception, Ahia v. Department of Transportation,' all of the court's Native Hawaiian rights decisions have been rendered by a unanimous court. Many of the decisions issued are in fact memorandum opinions and have no precedential effect. These opinions are discussed here because they mark a disturbing trend by the court to issue memorandum opinions even where a published opinion could clarify or develop the existing body of law. II. THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN TRUSTS Perhaps the clearest opportunity for the Lum Court to play a more dynamic, but still judicially appropriate, role in recognizing Native * B.A., Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin; J.D., Wm. S. Richardson School of Law, 1976. The author clerked for Chief Justice William S. Richardson of the Hawaii Supreme Court from 1976 to 1980. 1 69 Haw. 538, 751 P.2d 81 (1988) (Nakamura, J.). University of Hawai'i Law Review / Vol. 14:377 Hawaiian rights is in interpreting the two Native Hawaiian trusts- the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust and the Public Land Trust. The court's task in these instances would be merely to construe the appli- cable statutes establishing the trusts consistent with the state's fiduciary responsibility. The court's decisions, however, have been disappoint- ingly conservative, merely confirming the status quo or worse. A. The Hawaiian Home Lands Trust In 1921, the United States Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA), 2 setting aside between 188,000 acres and 203,000 acres of public trust lands for homesteading by Native Ha- waiians.' Under the HHCA, Native Hawaiians could obtain ninety- nine year leases at the rate of a dollar per year, for residential, pastoral, and agricultural lots. The HHCA also provided for services to assist the beneficiaries with the establishment of these homesteads. Congress, however, restricted eligibility for the program to Native Hawaiians of fifty percent or more Hawaiian blood. Primary responsibility for ad- ministration and management of the Hawaiian Homes program was transferred to the State of Hawaii as a condition of statehood.4 The program is now administered by a state agency, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, whose executive board is the Hawaiian Homes Commission. The federal government, however, still retains responsi- bility for certain aspects of implementing the original act and Congress has retained the power to amend the act.' In 1985, the Hawaiian Homes Commission (Commission), leased 4.3 acres of Hawaiian Homes lands to the Department of Transpor- tation (D.O.T.) for a public boat ramp at Kaulana, Kama'oa-Pu'u'eo, Ka' for $10,575, or the construction of certain improvements designed to accelerate homesteading in the area. Several beneficiaries challenged the Commission's authority, under section 204 of the HHCA, to lease the area to a public agency. Section 204(2) authorizes the Commission 2 42 Stat. 108 (1921), reprinted in I HAW. REV. STAT. at 167-205 (1985) (adopted in the HAW. CONST. art. XII, S 1). I See MELODY KAPILIALOHA MAcKENZIE, NATIVE HAWAIIAN RIGHTS HANDBOOK 43-76 (1990), for a detailed analysis of the HHCA and its implementation. Hawaii Admission Act 5§ 4, 5, 73 Stat. 4 (1959), reprinted in 1 HAW. REV. STAT. at 86-89 (1985). 1 Id.; HHCA § 223, 42 Stat. 108 (1921), reprinted in 1 HAW. REV. STAT. at 167- 205 (1985). 1992 / NATIVE HAWAIIAN RIGHTS to lease lands not required for homesteading to the public. The beneficiaries contended that a government agency, such as the D.O.T., is not a member of the public within the meaning of section 204(2). The Hawaii Supreme Court in Ahia v. Department of Transportation, in a three-to-two decision, agreed with the Commission that section 204 allows such a disposition. 6 In a lengthy opinion, Justice Nakamura, writing for the majority, determined that the elimination of the term "general public" in an earlier version of section 204(2) and the substitution of the term "public" indicated an intention by the legis- lature to include government agencies.7 According to the majority, the term "general public" refers to the people or community at large, but does not include organized government. 8 The legislative committee reports on the amendment indicated that one of its purposes was to "grant the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (Department) full authority to manage available Hawaiian home lands not required for leasing[.]" 9 The committee reports, however, gave no reason for the deletion of "the general public" and the substitution instead of "the public."10 The court concluded, however: In light of the stated purpose to invest the Commission with 'full authority to manage retained available .. .lands,' we think the amend- ment could only have been meant to dispel any notion that the Com- mission was not vested with such authority, including the power to lease to the government or its agencies 'available lands not required for leasing [as homestead lands to beneficiaries]." 1 The majority opinion did not specifically address whether this dis- position constituted a breach of the Commission's trust responsibility, but given the court's handling of other issues raised by the beneficiaries, it is unlikely that the majority would have found a breach of the trust. For instance, the beneficiaries had asserted that the lands in question were immediately needed for homesteading purposes. In disposing of that issue, the majority recognized that the Kama'oa-Pu'u'eo lands had never been leased to Native Hawaiians for homesteading, but justified the Commission's decision to lease the lands to the D.O.T. 6 69 Haw. 538, 751 P.2d 81 (1988). 7 Id. at 548, 751 P.2d at 88. Id. at 547, 751 P.2d at 88. Id. at 547, 751 P.2d at 87 (citing SEN. STANDING COMM. REP. No. 600-76, reprinted in 1976 HAW. SEN. J. 1141). 10 Id. I Id. University of Hawai'i Law Review / Vol. 14:377 as one that would bring water to the area and make it possible to start 2 a homesteading program. The minority opinion," written by Justice Padgett, with Justice Hayashi concurring, addressed the breach of trust question. Under the second paragraph of HHCA section 204(2), in giving a lease for "commercial, industrial, or other business purposes" the Department is required to give preference to Native Hawaiians. The appellants, Native Hawaiian beneficiaries, had alleged that they were willing and able to take the lease in question. The majority opinion rejected the notion that the lease was for a commercial purpose. Justice Padgett pointed out, however, that the two terms are not mutually exclusive; a boat ramp may be used by the public but can also serve a commercial purpose if fees are charged.' 4 The minority concluded that as long as the lease had commercial as well as public aspects to it, the Commission had a fiduciary responsibility to, at least, give consideration to making the lease to beneficiaries. 5 Justice Padgett also took the Commission and Department to task, reminding them that they, unlike other government agencies, are held to higher fiduciary responsibilities in 16 dealing with beneficiaries. The minority opinion then examined the construction of section 204(2). Another provision of HHCA, section 207(c), allows the De- partment to grant utility easements and licenses for public purposes. If section 204(2) can be read as giving the Department the authority to lease lands for public purposes, then, Padgett argued, the provisions of section 207(c) are "mere surplusage, devoid of any effect.' 17 Advocating a "holistic" approach, Justice Padgett concluded that the HHCA contains a "complete framework for dealing with the trust lands."'" This framework allows the Commission to make certain dispositions for public purposes and, with restrictions, to make leases to the public. It does not, in the minority's judgment, grant the Commission the unrestricted power to make leases for public purposes 9 to other government agencies. ' Justice Padgett, in an important foot- 12 Id. at 550, 751 P.2d at 89. 13 Id. at 552, 751 P.2d at 89 (Padgett, J., dissenting). 14 Id. at 553, 751 P.2d at 90. IS Id. at 554, 751 P.2d at 91. ,6 Id. at 553, 751 P.2d at 91. 17 Id. at 556, 751 P.2d at 92. 8 Id. at 557, 751 P.2d at 93. 19 Id. at 557-58, 751 P.2d at 93. 1992 / NATIVE HAWAIIAN RIGHTS note, recognized that his construction of the HHCA would require legislative action to validate certain dispositions of trust lands made by the Department. He concluded, however, [I]f there is to be a power, in the Department, to turn over trust lands to other government agencies, it should be as a result of express language enacted by the legislature and approved by Congress with a full public debate on the desirability and the terms thereof. We owe the trust and 20 its Native Hawaiian beneficiaries no less.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • U.S. House Report 32 for H.R. 4221 (Feb 1959)
    86TH CONoRESS L HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT 1st Session No. 32 HAWAII STATEHOOD FEBRUARY 11, 1959.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. AsPINALL, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 4221] The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 4221) to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The purpose of H.R. 4221, introduced by Representative O'Brien of New York, is to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union. This bill and its two companions-H.R. 4183 by Delegate Burns and H.R. 4228 by Representative Saylor-were introduced following the committee's consideration of 20 earlier 86th Congress bills and include all amendments adopted in connection therewith. These 20 bills are as follows: H.R. 50, introduced by Delegate Burns; H.R. 324, introduced by Representative Barrett; H.R. 801, introduced by Representative Holland; H.R. 888, introduced by Representative O'Brien of New York; H.R. 954, introduced by Representative Saylor; H.R. 959, introduced by Representative Sisk; H.R. 1106, introduced by Representative Berry; H.R. 1800, introduced by Repre- sentative Dent; H.R. 1833, introduced by Representative Libonati; H.R. 1917, introduced by Representative Green of Oregon; H.R. 1918, introduced by Representative Holt; H.R. 2004, introduced by Representative Younger; .H.R.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. House Report 32 for H.R. 4221
    2d Session No. 1564 AMENDING CERTAIN LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES IN LIGHT OF THE ADMISSION OF TIlE STATE OF HAWAII INTO THE UNION MAY 2, 1960.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. O'BRIEN of New York, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 116021 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was re- ferred the bill (H.R. 11602) to amend certain laws of the United States in light of the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. INTRODUCTION IT.R. 11602 was introduced by Representative Inouye after hearings on five predecessor bills (H.R. 10434 by Representative. Aspinall, H.R. 10443 by Congressman Inouye, H.R. 10456 by Representative O'Brien of New York, H.R. 10463 by Representative Saylor, and H.R. 10475 by Representative Westland). H.R. 11602 includes the amend- ments agreed upon in committee when H.R. 10443 was marked up. All of the predecessor bills except H.R. 10443 were identical and were introduced as a result of an executive communication from the Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget dated February 12, 1960, en- closing a draft of a bill which he recommended be enacted. This draft bill had been prepared after consultation with all agencies of t.th executive branch administering Federal statutes which were, or might be thought to have been, affected by the admission of Iawaii into the Union on August 24, 1959.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE of HAWAII DEPARTMENT of LAND and NATURAL RESOURCES Land Division Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 June 23, 2017 Board of Land and Na
    STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES Land Division Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 June 23, 2017 Board of Land and Natural Resources PSF No.: 16SD-160 State of Hawaii Honolulu, Hawaii OAHU Issuance of Right-of-Entry Permit to United States on Encumbered Land Onshore at Makua Beach and Unencumbered Submerged Lands Offshore of Makua Beach at Kahanahaiki, Waianae, Island of Oahu, Tax Map Key: (1) 8-1-001 :portion of 008 and seaward of 008. APPLICANT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Honolulu District LEGAL REFERENCE: Sections 171-55, Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended. LOCATION: Portion of Government fast lands at Makua Beach, Kaena Point State Park, and submerged lands offshore of Makua Beach, Kahanahaiki, Waianae, Island of Oahu, identified by Tax Map Key: (1) 8-1-001: portion of 008 and (1) 8-1-001: seaward of 008, as shown on the attached map labeled Exhibit A. AREA: Fast lands: 6.9 acres, more or less, TMK (1) 8-1-008-1:portion of 008. Submerged lands: 20 acres, more or less, seaward of TMK (1) 8-1-008-1:008. ZONING: State Land Use District: Conservation City & County of Honolulu CZO: N A D-9 BLNR - Issuance of ROE to Page 2 June 23, 2017 United States for Submerged Land TRUST LAND STATUS: Section 5(b) lands of the Hawaii Admission Act. DHHL 3000 entitlement lands pursuant to the Hawaii State Constitution: YES NO X CURRENT USE STATUS: Fast lands: Set aside by Governor’s Executive Order 3338 for Kaena Point State Park. Submerged lands: Unencumbered.
    [Show full text]
  • The Commerce of Recognition (Buy One Ethos, Get One Free): Toward Curing the Harm of the United States’ International Wrongful Acts in the Hawaiian Islands
    THE COMMERCE OF RECOGNITION (BUY ONE ETHOS, GET ONE FREE): TOWARD CURING THE HARM OF THE UNITED STATES’ INTERNATIONAL WRONGFUL ACTS IN THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS Julian Aguon ‘Ohia A Periodic Publication of Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law Mahalo nui loa to Kamehameha Schools for supporting Ka Huli Ao’s Post-Juris Doctor Research Fellowship Program, which enables recent law graduates to conduct cutting-edge research and produce new scholarship on issues that impact Native Hawaiian law and the Native Hawaiian community. The Fellows’Acknowledgements papers are published as part of Publication of Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law. The name ‘Ohia was inspired by a line from a chant for Kalākaua: ‘ohia mai ā pau pono nā ‘ike kumu o Hawai‘i, gather up every bit of the basic knowledge of Hawai‘i. G Ka Huli Ao Center rforee nExcellence L in Native Hawaiian Law is an academic center that promotes education, scholarship,ogos community fo outreach and collaboration on issues of law, culture and justice for Native Hawaiians and other Pacific and Indigenous peoples. natureOce.com | US-180-313550 r Hagado SAMPLE SAMPLE Carbo ne Printin Na SAMPLE ‘Ohia: A Periodic (Should notture use on light Inver n N eutral L g Co backgr se Rainfo ounds.) FSC POR ogos mp (PPC) SAMPLEnatureOce.com | US-180-313550SAMPLE any TRAIT POSITIVE COLOR: rest Allian www.kahuliao.orgSAMPLE Na SAMPLE SAMPLE ture Mo ce L FSC Label K FSC PORCopyright © 2012 Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellencenoch in Native Hawaiian Law (PPC) ogos r ome RAC B TRAIT
    [Show full text]
  • GPO-CDOC-108Hdoc226-5.Pdf
    Index 42940_12-APA-INDEX.indd 609 2/13/2018 12:50:32 PM Member names appear in bold (surnames in ALL CAPS) Bold page numbers denote Member profiles Italicized page numbers denote references to images and image captions A 452, 452, 558 – 59, 581 77, 81– 84, 280 – 300, 454 – 61 459, 462, 469n citizenship and, 277, 279 – 80, 306n, 559 military service of. See military service, Bordallo, Ricardo J. (Ricky), 371, 422 Abelarde, Pedro E., 17, 55 – 56 constitution of, 279, 414 Asian Pacific American Members of Bordonaro, Molly, 488 Abercrombie, Neil, 363, 401, 424, 426, 451, creation of Territorial Delegate position Congress Borseth, Peter, 164, 166 453, 522, 548 – 49 and, 280, 412, 428, 449 – 50, 602 statutory representation and, 3, 6, 11, 24n, Box, John C., 120 Abscam scandal, 340 – 41 diaspora and, 4 – 5, 430, 440, 444 – 45, 546 52 – 53, 85 – 86, 90n, 102 – 255, 258, Boxer, Barbara, 461– 62 Ackerman, Gary, 556 economy of, 415, 428, 432 – 33, 559 279 – 80, 366 – 75, 412 – 23, 428 – 35, Boykin, Frank W., 12 Adams, Alva, 235 – 36 fono, 279 439, 480 – 85, 558 – 61, 580 – 81 Bracero Program, 321– 22 Adams, Ansel, 291 Instrument of Cession, 278 surrogate representation and, 2, 23n, 328, Bradley, Bill, 399 Aglipay, Gregorio, 194 statehood and, 207 332, 358, 361– 62, 400 –10, 430, 445, Bradley, Willis, 278 Agnew, Spiro, 351 territorial status of, 2, 2, 17, 43, 207, 259, 447, 476, 607 Brands, H. W., 17, 54, 57 Aguinaldo, Emilio, 48, 51, 51, 66, 105, 124, 276 – 79, 277, 369, 421– 22, 446 women Members of Congress and, 12, 14, Brinkley, Alan, 5 136,
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ————
    No. 07-1372 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— STATE OF HAWAII, et al., Petitioners, v. OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS, et al., Respondents. ———— On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Hawaii ———— BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION ———— WILLIAM MEHEULA SHERRY P. BRODER WINER MEHEULA & Counsel of Record DEVENS LLP JON M. VAN DYKE Ocean View Center 841 Bishop Street, Suite 800 707 Richards Street, PH1 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (808) 531-1411 (808) 528-5003 NEAL KUMAR KATYAL HAYDEN ALULI 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW 707 Alakea Street, Washington, DC 20001 Suite 213 MELODY K. MACKENZIE Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 579 Kaneapu Place Attorneys for Individual Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Plaintiffs Attorneys for Office of Hawaiian Affairs WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Hawaii Supreme Court acted within its authority in relying upon Hawaii’s laws and Constitution, as well as principles of trust law and the 1993 federal Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, to impose an injunction on the sale or transfer of the lands conveyed in trust to the State of Hawaii until the ongoing reconciliation process between the state and federal governments and native Hawaiians is completed? (i) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED.................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................................ v STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED.......... 1 STATEMENT ...................................................... 2 ARGUMENT........................................................ 8 I. THIS COURT’S REVIEW IS UNWAR- RANTED BECAUSE THE HAWAII SUPREME COURT’S DECISION RESTED FIRMLY UPON INDEPEND- ENT AND ADEQUATE STATE GROUNDS ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federal-State Task Force on the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act ·
    FEDERAL-STATE TASK FORCE ON THE HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION ACT · REPORT TO UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF HAWAII • H 0 N 0 L U L U, H A W A I I AUGUST 15,1983 Task Force Members Ann K. Nathaniel, Chairperson Stephen P. Shipley, Vice-Chairperson Mililani Trask, Secretary-Treasurer Kenneth F. Brown Rodney K. Burgess. III Ben Gaddis ·Cecil S. Hoffmann Georgiana K. Padeken Kamuela Price Ruth G. Van Cleve Abbie Napeahi. ex-officio Task force Staff !lima A. Piianaia, Administrator Vincent Hinano Rodrigues, Researcher/Assistant Jill Gollero, Secretary • Federal-State Task Force on the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act 550 Halekauwila Street, Room 307 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: 548~3494 Chairperson Kenneth F. Brown Ann K Nathaniel Rodney K Burgess, Ill Ben Gaddis Vice·Chairper&On Cecil Hoffmann Stephen P. Shipley Abbie Napeahi Secretary .. Treaaurer Georgiana K. Padeken August 15, 1983 Kamuela Price Mili1ani Trask Ruth Van Cleve The Honorable James G. Watt Secretary United States Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 The Honorable George R. Ariyoshi Governor State of Hawaii Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Sirs: It is with pleasure that I sumbit to you the Report of the Federal-State Task Force on the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. The overriding premise that formed the basis of the Task Force endeavors is found in the mission statement: "To better effectuate the purposes of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and to accelerate the distribution of benefits of the Act to the beneficiaries". During the past nine months four substantive areas were studied in depth.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Senate Report 80 for S. 50 (March 1959)
    Calendar No.75 86TH CONGRESS ) SENATE J REPORT 1st Session No. 80 ..... STATEHOOD FOR HAWAII MARca 5, 1959.-Ordered to be printed Mr. JACKSON, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 50] The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was re- ferred the bill to provide for the admission of the State of-Hawaii into the Union, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The action of the Interior Committee in considering the measure, which is sponsored by 56 Members of the Senate, and voting to report it favorably was unanimous. The committee held hearings in February of this year on S. 50-the 23d public hearing on Hawaii statehood that has been held by com- mittees of Congress since 1935-followed by executive conferences to amend and perfect the bill. PURPOSE OF MEASURE The purpose of S. 50 is to provide for the admission of the populous and prosperous Territory of Hawaii, which has been an integral, "in- corporated" part of the United States for 60 years, into the Union as a full and equal sovereign State. Passage of this measure would re- quire no further action by the Congress, but several important steps by the people of the Territory and by the President will remain after enactment. Hawaii is the only incorporated Territory-one to which the Consti- tution of the United States has been expressly extended-under the American flag which has fulfilled all of our historic precedents for statehood but which has not yet achieved the destiny of all other incorporated Territories.
    [Show full text]
  • List of U.S. States by Date of Admission to the Union
    List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union A state of the United States is one of the 50 constituent entities that shares its sovereignty with the federal government. Americans are citizens of both the federal republic and of the state in which they reside, due to the shared sovereignty between each state and the federal government.[1] Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia use the term commonwealth rather than state in their full official names. States are the primary subdivisions of the United States. They possess all powers not granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to them by the United States Map of the United States with names and borders of Constitution. In general, state governments have the states power to regulate issues of local concern, such as: regulating intrastate commerce, running elections, creating local governments, public school policy, and non-federal road construction and maintenance. Each state has its own constitution grounded in republican principles, and government consisting of executive, legislative, and judicial branches.[2] All states and their residents are represented in the federal Congress, a bicameral legislature consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Each state is represented by two Senators, and at least one Representative, while the size of a state's House delegation depends on its total population, as determined by the most recent constitutionally- mandated decennial census.[3] Additionally, each state is The order in which the original 13 states ratified the 1787 Constitution, then the order in which the others were entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the admitted to the union Electoral College, the body that elects the President of the United States, equal to the total of Representatives and Senators in Congress from that state.[4] Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution grants to Congress the authority to admit new states into the Union.
    [Show full text]
  • I Tn Te Tate
    No. 07-1372 IN THE upreme eurt of the ’i tn te tate. STATE OF HAWAII, et al., Petitioners, Vo OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Hawaii BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION WILLIAM MEHEULA SHERRY P. BRODER WINER MEHEULA 8~ Counsel of Record DEVENS LLP JON M. VAN DYKE Ocean View Center 841 Bishop Street, Suite 800 707 Richards Street, PH1 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (808) 531-1411 (808) 528-5003 NEAL KUMAR KATYAL HAYDEN ALULI 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW 707 Alakea Street, Washington, DC 20001 Suite 213 MELODY K. MACKENZIE Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 5~9 Kaneapu Place Attorneys for Individual Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Plaintiffs Attorneys for Office of Hawaiian Affairs WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO. INC. - (202) 789-0096 - WASHINGTON D.C. 20002 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Hawaii Supreme Court acted within its authority in relying upon Hawaii’s laws and Constitution, as well as principles of trust law and the 1993 federal Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, to impose an injunction on the sale or transfer of the lands conveyed in trust to the State of Hawaii until the ongoing reconciliation process between the state and federal governments and native Hawaiians is completed? (i) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED .................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ v STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .......... 1 STATEMENT ...................................................... 2 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 8 I. THIS COURT’S REVIEW IS UNWAR- RANTED BECAUSE THE HAWAII SUPREME COURT’S DECISION RESTED FIRMLY UPON INDEPEND- ENT AND ADEQUATE STATE GROUNDS ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar No. 568
    Calendar No. 568 112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 2d Session SENATE 112–251 TO EXPRESS THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES REGARDING THE UNITED STATES RELATIONSHIP WITH NATIVE HAWAIIANS AND TO PRO- VIDE PARITY AND A PROCESS FOR THE RECOGNITION BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNING ENTITY DECEMBER 17, 2012.—Ordered to be printed Mr. AKAKA, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [To accompany S. 675] The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 675) to express the policy of the United States regarding the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to provide a process for the recognition by the United States of the Native Ha- waiian governing entity, having considered the same, reports favor- ably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass. PURPOSE The purpose of S. 675 is to ensure parity in federal treatment of Native nations with whom the United States has a trust responsi- bility, to establish a process for the reorganization and federal rec- ognition of a Native Hawaiian governing entity, and to reaffirm the special political and legal relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian governing entity for purposes of carrying on a government-to-government relationship. BACKGROUND Native Hawaiians are the only federally-recognized Native people barred from self-determination and self-governance The Native Hawaiian people are the only federally-recognized Native people without a government-to-government relationship 29–010 VerDate Mar 15 2010 07:00 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 029010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR251.XXX SR251 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 2 with the Federal Government.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.3-Native Hawai'ian Sovereignty Movement
    3.3-Native Hawaiʻian Sovereignty Movement The Asian American Education Project Grade 6-12 Levels Lesson Good Americans (1950 – 1960s). This lesson provides an overview of Hawaiʻi’s history as a Overview kingdom, the development of the plantation economy in the 19th century, and the shift to statehood in the 20th century. Since the overthrow of the Hawaiʻian monarchy in 1893, Native Hawaiʻians have been seeking sovereignty from the United States. And with the gradual influx of Asian immigrants to the island as laborers to work on sugar plantations, Native Hawaiʻians have seen their island’s population change, and with it, a shift in the economic and political dynamics between the indigenous people and Asian Americans. Lesson Students will learn about: Objectives • The history of Hawaiʻi before it became the fiftieth state of the United States in 1959. • The shared experiences of immigrant plantation workers in Hawaii that led to a mixed local culture and the growing political influence of Asian Americans. • Different points of view regarding Hawaiʻian statehood by Asian Americans and Native Hawaiʻians. • The Akaka Bill. • Current events regarding Native Hawaiʻians’ fight to protect their sacred land. • Challenges faced by Native Hawaiʻians in fighting for independence and to save their land. Background Essay: Before Hawaiʻi became the fiftieth state of the United States, it was an independent kingdom. Its distinct culture had emerged on an archipelago in the Pacific Ocean by the 12th century with multiple kingdoms across islands. The civilization remained isolated until 1778 when British explorer James Cook arrived. In 1795, King Kamehameha I consolidated rule over the islands and started the unified Kingdom of Hawaiʻi.
    [Show full text]