No. 04-15306 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EARL F. ARAKAKI, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. LINDA LINGLE, et al., Defendants/Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Honorable Susan Oki Mollway, District Judge APPELLANTS' REPLY TO ANSWERING BRIEFS H. WILLIAM BURGESS (HI 833) 2299C Round Top Drive Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Telephone: (808) 947-3234 Facsimile: (808) 947-5822 E-mail: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs/Appellants University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection APPELLANTS' REPLY TO ANSWERING BRIEFS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Table of Authorities .............................................................................. iii - viii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 POLITICAL QUESTION ISSUE ................................................................... 1 I. In cases involving alleged racial discrimination, courts do not accept legislative allegations or conclusions but rigorously scrutinize them ...................................................................................... 4 II. Determining whether a group has been recognized as an Indian Tribe under existing law is a legal question, not a political question ................................................................................. 12 III. Under Rice, this court need not decide whether Hawaiians are an Indian Tribe to decide that the constitution bars state agencies, including OHA and DHHL, from discriminating based on racial ancestry ..................................................................................... 17 IV. Neither the property clause nor the admission clause immunize DHHL or OHA from review ............................................................... 21 A. Congressional exercises of power under the property clause are subject to judicial review .............................................. 22 B. Congress cannot use its property clause power to exempt the State's racial discrimination in the use of its public lands and moneys for DHHL and OHA from judicial review review under the equal protection clause ...................................... 28 C. Under the Admission Clause, Congress cannot impose conditions that put the new state on an unequal footing with the other states. \. University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection D. Indigenousness has no legal significance. PLAINTIFFS' PUBLIC LAND TRUST CLAIMS ...................................... 38 V. The public land trust (sometimes called the "ceded lands trust") was first established by the Newlands Resolution in 1898 ................ 39 VI. A trust may be created by transferring property without using the word "trust" and even when broad powers of management are given. Hawaii intentionally required the trust for practical reasons ................................................................................................. 44 VII. There is only one Hawaii public land trust. Arakaki has consistently sought to enforce the legal terms of that trust ................ 47 VIII. The fact that the trustee may spend for other purposes does not deprive Arakaki of standing ......................................................... 48 IX. The existence of a trust relationship has an attendant right of the aggrieved beneficiary to sue the trustee for breach of trust .......... 49 X. The causal connection ......................................................................... 51 PLAINTIFFS TAXPAYER CLAIMS ............................................................ .. XI. Plaintiffs' increased state taxes are also fairly traceable to the imposition ofHHCA ..................................................................... 53 XII. It has been stipulated that the state appropriates general funds to DHHL and OHA. .............................................................................. 57 XIII. Asarco did not overrule Hoohuli. Hawley did allow taxpayers to challenge below market rents ......................................................... 61 XIV. The need for declaratory and injunctive relief binding on the federal defendant ........................................................................... 64 XV. Other issues presented by ARAKAKI for review .............................. 67 XVI. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 68 ii University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGES Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) ............................... 27, 36 Alaska Chapter, Associated General Contractors ofAmerica v. Pierce, 694 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1982) ................................................................................... 37 Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) ................................................................................................. 15 Allied Stores v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522, 530 (1959) ................................................. 26 Arakaki v. State of Hawaii, 314 F.3d 1091 (9 th Cir. 2002) ...................................... 11 Arakaki I Summary Judgment Order - Second Amended Order (Aug. 22, 2003) ........................................................................................................ 21 Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 612-617 (1989) ................................ 61, 62, 63 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) .................................................................. 13, 14 Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 456 F.2d 1339, 1346-1347 (C.A.2 1972) (on remand) .............................................................. 49, 50 Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) ................................................................... 24 Brown v. Bd. of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 494, n.11 ........................................... 9, 24 Butz v. Economou, 48 U.S. 478 (1978) .................................................................... 50 Cammack v. Waihee, 932 F.2d 770 (9th cir. 1991) ................................................... 61 City ofRichmondv. J.A. Croson & Co., 488 U.S. 469,501 (1989) ............... 6,7,36 Cotton Petroleum Corp. V. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163, 192 (1989) ....................... 35 Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911) ........................................................... 32, 33, 34 iii University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection Delaware Tribal Business Comm. V. Weeks, 430 US 73, 84 (1977) ................ 15, 23 Doe v. Madison School District, 177 F.3d 789 (9 th Cir. 1999) ................... 57,61,62 Economou v. U.S. Dept. ofAgriculture, 535 F.2d, at 695, n. 7 ............................... 50 Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.s. 504, 521 (1989) .............................. 9 Hawai'i v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903) .............................................................. 28 Hawley v. City of Cleveland, 773 F.2d 736, 741-42 (6th Cir. 1985), Cert Denied, 475 U.S. 1047, 106 S.Ct. 1266, 89 Led.2d 575 (1986) ...................... 64 Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943) ................................................ 6, 7 Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi, 741 F.2d 1169 (9th Cir. 1984) .......................................... 61, 62 Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 222 F. Supp. 1219-21 (D. Haw. 2002) ............................. 38 Keaukaha-Panaewa Community Association v. Hawaiian Homes Commission, 588 F.2d 1216, 1226 (9th Cir. 1978) ......................................................................... 28 Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 536 (1976) ................................................... 25 Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 ............................................................. 6, 7 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ...................................................................... 30 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 176 (1803) ...................................... .14 Marsh v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo 2000-11, 79 T.C.M. (CCH) 1327, T.C.M. (RIA) 2000-011, 2000 RIA TC Memo 2000-0011 (Tax Ct. 2000) ........................................................................................ 12 McClanahan v. State Tax Commission ofArizona, 411 U.S. 164, 172 and n.7 (1973) ............................................................................ 36 Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana, Inc. v. U.s. Dept. of Interior, iv \ University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection 255 F.3d 342 (7th Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................... 15 Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 922 (1995) ......................................................... 6, 7 Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) ......................... 1, 2, 19, 20, 21, 36, 37, 38 Napeahi v. Paty, 921 F.2d 897, 901 n.2 (9th cir. 1990) ............................................ 51 Pennsylvania v. Board of City Trusts, 353 U.S. 989, 77 S.Ct. 1281 (1957) ......................................................................................... 31,32 Price v. Akaka, 928 F.2d 824, 827 (1990) ......................................................... 48, 49 Price v. State of Hawai'i, 764 F.2d 623,626-28 (9 th Cir. 1985) ...... 2, 15, 16, 17,48 Railway Express v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949) ................................................