Aged Hawaiians v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n
|
78 Hawai‘i 192 (1995)
|
Plaintiffs: |
Plaintiffs' Attorneys: |
- The Aged Hawaiians
|
- Paul Nahoa Lucas, Native Hawaiian Legal Corp.
- Alan T. Murakami, Native Hawaiian Legal Corp.
|
Defendants: |
Defendants Attorneys: |
- Hawaiian Homes Commission
- Kali Watson, Chairman of the Hawaiian Home Commission
- Andrew Apana
- Nani Brandt
- Rockne Freitas
- Dennis Kauahi
- Llewellyn Kumalae
- Ann Nathaniel
- Patricia Sheehan
- Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
|
- Steven S. Michaels, Asst. Atty. Gen., Honolulu
- Girard D. Lau, Asst. Asst. Atty. Gen., Honolulu
- Clayton Lee Crowell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Honolulu
- Sonia Faust, Asst. Atty. Gen., Honolulu
- George K.K. Kaeo, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Honolulu
|
Court: |
Supreme
Court of Hawai‘i |
Opinion by: |
Justice
Klein |
Other Jurists: |
Court Below: |
- Moon, C.J.
- Levinson
- Nakayama
- Ramil, JJ
|
Third
Circuit Court, County of Hawai‘i |
Key laws involved: |
- Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA), 1920, § 1 et seq., 42 State.
108
- Hawai‘i Administrative Procedure Act, H.R.S. Chapter 91
- Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
|
Summary: |
- The appellants appealed the Third Circuit Court’s order granting
in part and denying in part the appellees’ motion to dismiss appellant’s
Second Amended Complaint. Appellants were native Hawaiian beneficiaries
under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA), which gave control of
200,000 acres of land to the Hawaiian Homes Commission (Commission).
The land was categorized into three sections, which were agricultural,
pastoral, and residential. In 1952, the Commission withdrew 18,000 acres
of pastoral land for homesteads and awarded 48 pastoral homestead lots
to applicants. The remaining land was used for general leasing.
- In 1987, the Commission adopted a policy, which granted pastoral land
of no more than 100 acres as part of the 1987 Raw Lands Acceleration
Program. The program promoted subsistence ranching. In 1988, James Akiona
petitioned for a case hearing to demonstrate his abilities to commercial
ranch and to contest the subsistence policy because it conflicted with
the HHCA. While Akiona’s petition was pending, the Commission
adopted a 10-premise guideline for the allocation of pastoral land.
Akiona’s petition was denied. Akiona and the Aged Hawaiians filed
a claim in the third circuit court and sought declaratory and injunctive
relief. The Third Circuit Court granted Akiona and Aged Hawaiian’s
motion to enjoin further issuance of pastoral lands until the Commission’s
10-premise guidelines complied with the official notice-and-comment
provision as established in HRS Chapter 91. The Commission complied
with the Third Circuit Court’s order by formally adopting a rule,
which included the 10-premise guidelines (HAR § 10-3-29).
- In 1990, the Commission adopted the 1990 pastoral lot size plan, which
withdrew additional land at Pu‘ukapu, Ka‘u, and Humu‘ula.
Akiona and Aged Hawaiians filed two additional motions that sought to
enjoin the Commission from granting lots under the 1990 plan and to
amend their complaint. The Third Circuit Court denied Akiona and Aged
Hawaiians’ motion to enjoin the Commission and granted Akiona
and Aged Hawaiians’ motion to amend their complaint. Akiona withdrew
from the lawsuit after the Commission’s Chairperson wrote a letter
to the awardees notifying that the pending litigation sought to prevent
the Commission from administering the pastoral leases. The two remaining
parties unsuccessfully attempted to settle the case through mediation.
- The Aged Hawaiians filed another motion requesting permanent injunctive
relief because the Commission violated due process rights. The Third
Circuit Court granted the appellees’ motion to dismiss the appellant’s
claims except for the appellant’s claim that appellees had failed
to properly adopt formal procedures for contested case hearings. Additionally,
the Third Circuit Court issued an order declaring HAR § 10-3-29
void for vagueness. The appellant filed a motion, seeking to reconsider
the Third Circuit Court’s order. The Third Circuit Court issued
an amended order, which added the primary jurisdiction doctrine as a
bar to appellant’s claims. Subsequently, the appellant filed for
certification of the Third Circuit Court’s amended order. The
Third Circuit Court granted the appellant’s motion and the petitioner
served a notice of appeal.
- The appellees contested the motion granting certification because
the order on appeal did not dismiss any claims. The Supreme Court of
Hawai‘i found the motion for certification appropriate because
the circuit court had set forth specific reasons for its order and the
appellant’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was severable from
its unadjudicated claims.
- The appellant argued that the Third Circuit Court erred when it dismissed
its claim that the appellees failed to provide a reasonable opportunity
for the appellant to receive a sufficient amount of land for commercial
ranching under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Third Circuit Court had found
the claim to be barred by primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative
remedies. The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i held that the primary jurisdiction
doctrine was an improper bar to the appellant’s claim because
the issues in the case involved questions about the constitutionality
of the agency’s rules and procedures, and whether the agency had
overstepped its power of authority. Therefore, the agency was not authorized
to answer those questions of law.
- The appellees argued that the appellant could not make a claim under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the HHCA was not a federal law. The Supreme
Court of Hawai‘i held that the HHCA was a federal law because
it was enacted by Congress as a federal public trust, which was handed
over to the State.
- The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i found that HHCA and Admission Act
created a binding obligation on the State because the HHCA and the Admission
Act created federal public trust. Therefore, the State, as a trustee,
was bound to the common law of trusts.
- The appellees argued that they had made efforts to allocate land to
improve conditions for Native Hawaiians pursuant to the Admission Act.
However, the appellant had sought to exercise the right to a hearing
as trust beneficiary of the federal public trust. The Supreme Court
of Hawai‘i held that the appellant had the right to a hearing
to demonstrate the appropriateness of a land award because the appellant’s
claim was based on a valid property interest, the Commission was precluded
from arbitrarily awarding land, and there were no reasonable alternatives
to receive relief. The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i REVERSED the Third
Circuit Court’s order dismissing the appellant’s claim under
Section 1983, and VACATED and REMANDED the appellant’s breach
of trust claim.
|