Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs

Last updated

Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 25, 2009
Decided March 31, 2009
Full case nameHawaii, et al., Petitioners v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, et al.
Docket no. 07-1372
Citations556 U.S. 163 ( more )
129 S. Ct. 1436; 173 L. Ed. 2d 333
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Holding
Supreme Court of Hawaii reversed and remanded
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinion
MajorityAlito, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Newlands Resolution, Hawaii Admission Act, Apology Resolution

Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 556 U.S. 163 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case about the former crown lands of the Hawaiian monarchy, and whether the state's right to sell them was restricted by the 1993 Apology Resolution. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, ruled unanimously that the state had the power to sell the lands free of encumbrances.

Contents

Overview

In 1893, a "Committee of Safety," in co-operation with United States minister to Hawaii John L. Stevens, overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii and established a provisional government. The resulting Republic of Hawaii governed the islands until 1898, when the United States granted their proposal for annexation. Under the Newlands Resolution, the Republic of Hawaii "'cede[d] absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind' and further 'cede[d] and transfer[red] to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands ... and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands.' The Newlands Resolution further provided that all 'property and rights' in the ceded lands 'are vested in the United States of America.'" [1]

The Hawaiian Organic Act established a territorial government for Hawaii in 1900. In the Organic Act, Congress provided that "The portion of the public domain heretofore known as Crown land is hereby declared to have been, on [1898], and prior thereto, the property of the Hawaiian government, and to be free and clear from any trust of or concerning the same, and from all claim of any nature whatsoever, upon the rents, issues, and profits thereof. It shall be subject to alienation and other uses as may be provided by law." [1] In 1959, Hawaii was admitted as a state by the Hawaii Admission Act. In that Act, Congress transferred title to most of the former Crown lands to the state, including the parcel at issue in this case. [1]

In 1993, the United States Congress adopted the Apology Resolution, in which the United States apologized for its role in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893. Shortly thereafter, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) sought to enjoin a residential development on a parcel of land owned by the state that was held in trust for Native Hawaiians and the general public. OHA also requested that the Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HFDC - the state agency in charge of the parcel's development) certify that any transfer of the parcel's ownership would not diminish Native Hawaiians' claims to the land and include a disclaimer to that effect. The HFDC refused, believing that such a disclaimer would render it impossible for future owners to obtain title insurance. HFDC sent OHA a check for the land. OHA refused to accept the payment.

Procedural history

OHA filed suit in state court. The trial court held in favor of HFDC. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Hawaii reversed and held that the Apology Resolution changed the legal relationships of the parties and issued an injunction against development of the land until the state of Hawaii reconciled with Native Hawaiians. The state appealed to the United States Supreme Court in 2008.

The issue was whether the Apology Resolution barred Hawaii from selling land held in public trust to third parties until the claims of Native Hawaiians had been resolved.

The OHA argued that the Apology Resolution changed the relationship between Native Hawaiians and the government and that it restored rights that had been lost in the 1893 revolution. The state disagreed by arguing that the language was intended only as an apology and that no changes in law had been made.

Decision

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a unanimous US Supreme Court, which reversed the Hawaii Supreme Court's ruling and held that the Apology Resolution had neither created new rights nor changed the relationship between the state and Native Hawaiians. The Apology Resolution used only conciliatory words, which are not used by Congress to create substantive rights.

The Apology Resolution noted that it did not serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States. However, a disclaimer of settling claims against one sovereign, the United States, cannot be read as an affirmative recognition of claims against another sovereign, Hawaii.

Aftermath

After the decision, HFDC continued to develop the parcel, which will be called the Leiali'i Affordable Housing Project. It was expected to be complete by 2016. [2] However, the plan was not finished. In 2022, the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation discussed potentially transferring the undeveloped Leialiʻi land, controlled by the state, to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. [3]

In 2024, two temporary housing projects were announced on Leialiʻi land to house survivors displaced by the 2023 Maui wildfires. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lahaina, Hawaii</span> Settlement in Maui County, Hawaii, United States

Lahaina is a census-designated place (CDP) in Maui County, Hawaii, United States. On the northwest coast of the island of Maui, it encompasses Lahaina town and the Kaanapali and Kapalua beach resorts. As of the 2020 census, Lahaina had a resident population of 12,702. The CDP spans the coast along Hawaii Route 30 from a tunnel at the south end, through Olowalu, and to the CDPs of Kaanapali and Napili-Honokowai to the north.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crown land</span> Territory belonging to a monarch

Crown land, also known as royal domain, is a territorial area belonging to the monarch, who personifies the Crown. It is the equivalent of an entailed estate and passes with the monarchy, being inseparable from it. Today, in Commonwealth realms, crown land is considered public land and is apart from the monarch's private estate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Native Hawaiians</span> Indigenous Polynesian people of the Hawaiian Islands

Native Hawaiians are the indigenous Polynesian people of the Hawaiian Islands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hawaiian sovereignty movement</span> Grassroots movement to gain self-determination and rule for Hawaiians

The Hawaiian sovereignty movement is a grassroots political and cultural campaign to reestablish an autonomous or independent nation or kingdom of Hawaii out of a desire for sovereignty, self-determination, and self-governance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mililani Trask</span>

Mililani Trask is a leader of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, political speaker, and attorney. One of Trask's contributions to the Hawaiian sovereignty movement was her founding of Na Koa Ikaika o Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi, a native Hawaiian non-governmental organization focusing on cultural, social, and economic development, education, health, housing, land entitlements, energy, and water issues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Apology Resolution</span> U.S. joint resolution about Hawaii

Public Law 103-150, informally known as the Apology Resolution, is a Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress adopted in 1993 that "acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum". The resolution has been cited as impetus for the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, and has been the subject of debate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Office of Hawaiian Affairs</span> Government body in the State of Hawaii, US

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) is a self-governing corporate body of the State of Hawaii created by the 1978 Hawaii State Constitutional Convention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Akaka Bill</span>

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 S1011/HR2314 was a bill before the 111th Congress. It is commonly known as the Akaka Bill after Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, who proposed various forms of this bill after 2000.

A land patent is a form of letters patent assigning official ownership of a particular tract of land that has gone through various legally-prescribed processes like surveying and documentation, followed by the letter's signing, sealing, and publishing in public records, made by a sovereign entity.

Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000), was a case filed in 1996 by Big Island rancher Harold "Freddy" Rice against the state of Hawaii and argued before the United States Supreme Court. In 2000, the Court ruled that the state could not restrict eligibility to vote in elections for the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to persons of Native Hawaiian descent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal status of Hawaii</span>

The legal status of Hawaii is an evolving legal matter as it pertains to United States law. The US Federal law was amended in 1993 with the Apology Resolution which "acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands".

In 1898, the United States Congress annexed Hawaiʻi based on a Joint Resolution of Annexation. Questions about the legitimacy of the U.S. acquiring Hawaii through a joint resolution, rather than a treaty, were actively debated in Congress in 1898, and is the subject of ongoing debate. Upon annexation, the Republic of Hawai‘i transferred approximately 1.8 million acres of Hawaiian Government and Crown Lands to the United States (U.S.), which are today held by the State of Hawaiʻi. In the 1993 Apology Resolution, the U.S. government officially apologized to the Native Hawaiian people, acknowledging that the Republic of Hawaiʻi transferred these lands "without the consent of or any compensation to the Native Hawaiian people of Hawaiʻi or their sovereign government" and that "the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims. .. over their national lands to the United States." Although the lands are commonly referred to as "ceded lands" or "public lands," some refer to them as "seized lands" or "Hawaiian national lands" to highlight the illegal nature of the land transfer, acknowledge different interpretations of the legal effect of the Joint Resolution, and to recognize that Native Hawaiians maintain claims to these lands. Many Native Hawaiian individuals and organizations insist on the return of title, which would be consistent with international law and recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples, whereas others seek back rent for the use of the land.

In Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States the term treaty rights specifically refers to rights for indigenous peoples enumerated in treaties with settler societies that arose from European colonization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Susan Oki Mollway</span> American judge (born 1950)

Susan Naomi Oki Mollway is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii and the first East Asian woman and Japanese-American woman ever appointed to a life-time position on the federal bench.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hawaiian Kingdom</span> Sovereign state on the Hawaiian Islands from 1795 to 1893

The Hawaiian Kingdom, also known as Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, was a sovereign state located in the Hawaiian Islands which existed from 1795 to 1893. It was established during the late 18th century when Hawaiian chief Kamehameha I, from the island of Hawaii, conquered the islands of Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, and unified them under one government. In 1810, the Hawaiian Islands were fully unified when the islands of Kauai and Niihau voluntarily joined the Hawaiian Kingdom. Two major dynastic families ruled the kingdom, the House of Kamehameha and the House of Kalākaua.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States federal recognition of Native Hawaiians</span>

Native Hawaiians are the Indigenous peoples of the Hawaiian Islands. Since the involvement of the United States in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, federal statutes have been enacted to address conditions of Native Hawaiians, with some feeling these should be formalized in the same manner of sovereignty as other Indigenous populations in the United States and Alaska Natives. However, some controversy surrounds the proposal for formal recognition – many Native Hawaiian political organizations believe recognition might interfere with Hawaiian claims to independence as a constitutional monarchy through international law.

Kuleana rights arose in the mid-1800s and protected the entitlement of Hawaiian tenant farmers and their descendants to, among other things, access landlocked real estate parcels.

The Kuleana Act of 1850, proposed by the King in Privy Council passed by the Hawaii legislature created a system for private land ownership in seven parts. Section 1 recognized ownership of government plots occupied and improved by families. Section 2 expanded title to other types of land. Section 3 defined land boundaries and the ability to exchange portions of land. Section 4 established a system for the Hawaiian government to distribute larger parcels of land. Section 5 established the largest size of family owned lots. Section 6 attempted to distinguish between cultivated and waste lands. Section 7 established access to roads, water sources, and other natural resources.

County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving pollution discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case asked whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through mechanisms such as groundwater transport. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that such non-point discharges require a permit when they are the "functional equivalent of a direct discharge", a new test defined by the ruling. The decision vacated the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case with instructions to apply the new standard to the lower courts with cooperation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Linda Dela Cruz was a Native Hawaiian singer known as "Hawaii's Canary" and acclaimed for the Hawaiian "ha'i" (falsetto) style of singing. She was honored as an inductee of the Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame twice, once in 2006 as an individual and again in 2015 as part of the Halekulani Girls. After retiring from her musical career, Dela Cruz worked as an activist for Hawaiian rights and served on the board of trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 556 U.S. 163, 167 (2009).
  2. Staff (December 27, 2012). "Maui's Villages of Leialii affordable housing project gets EIS approval". Pacific Business News.
  3. "400 acres of major Lahaina project Villages of Leialiʻi offered to DHHL". Maui Now. March 11, 2022.
  4. Clark, Cammy (March 7, 2024). "2 Temporary Group Housing Sites To Be Built In Lahaina For Maui Fire Survivors". Honolulu Civil Beat. Retrieved April 8, 2024.