Flores v. Board of Land and Natural Resources.
424 P.3d 469 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under constitutional due process, a party is not entitled to a contested case hearing for an agency action when they have already had a full and fair opportunity to vindicate the same interests in a separate, related contested case hearing concerning the same underlying project.
Facts:
- In 1968, the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) leased land within the Mauna Kea Science Reserve to the University of Hawai'i under a Master Lease.
- The Master Lease required the University to obtain BLNR's prior written approval for any sublease of the land.
- The University of Hawai'i sought to sublease an 8.7-acre portion of the Mauna Kea Science Reserve to TMT International Observatory LLC (TIO) for the construction and operation of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT).
- The proposed sublease specified that it was subject to the rights of Native Hawaiians to exercise protected traditional and customary practices.
- E. Kalani Flores, who engages in traditional and customary Native Hawaiian practices on Mauna Kea, opposed the sublease.
- The University submitted a formal written request to BLNR for its approval and consent to the sublease with TIO.
Procedural Posture:
- The University of Hawai'i requested consent from the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) for a sublease.
- At two public meetings, E. Kalani Flores orally requested a contested case hearing, which he later petitioned for in writing.
- BLNR denied Flores's request for a contested case hearing and consented to the sublease.
- Flores appealed BLNR's denial to the Environmental Court of the Third Circuit, a trial-level court.
- The Environmental Court ruled in favor of Flores, finding BLNR violated his constitutional rights, and vacated the consent.
- BLNR, as appellant, and the University, as cross-appellant, appealed the Environmental Court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Hawai'i.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Board of Land and Natural Resources' (BLNR) denial of a request for a contested case hearing regarding its consent to a sublease for the Thirty Meter Telescope project violate a party's due process rights, when that party has already participated in a separate contested case hearing concerning the construction permit for the same project?
Opinions:
Majority - Nakayama, J.
No. The BLNR's denial of a contested case hearing did not violate Flores's due process rights because such a hearing was not required by statute, administrative rule, or constitutional due process under the circumstances. A contested case hearing is 'required by law' only if mandated by one of those three sources. First, the relevant statute governing sublease consent, HRS § 171-36(a)(6), contains no language requiring a hearing. Second, the applicable administrative rules, HAR Title 13, do not require a hearing for sublease consent, even though they do for other specific BLNR actions. Third, for constitutional due process, the court applied the three-factor balancing test from Sandy Beach Defense Fund. While Flores has a substantial, constitutionally protected property interest in his Native Hawaiian cultural practices (Factor 1), there was no risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest without an additional hearing (Factor 2). This is because Flores had already participated fully in a separate contested case hearing regarding the Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP) for the TMT project, where he raised the same issues and presented the same evidence, including the sublease itself. Therefore, an additional hearing on the sublease consent would be duplicative, offer no additional protective value, and would impose an unnecessary administrative burden on the government (Factor 3).
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of procedural due process rights in the context of multi-stage administrative approvals for large-scale projects. It establishes that while a protected property interest may trigger the right to a hearing, that right is not absolute for every subsequent or derivative agency action. The court's holding effectively prevents parties from demanding duplicative hearings for ministerial or related approvals once the core substantive issues have been fully litigated in a prior, comprehensive proceeding. This precedent enhances administrative efficiency by limiting redundant legal challenges and solidifying the principle that a single, meaningful opportunity to be heard can satisfy due process requirements for an entire project.
