Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs
129 S. Ct. 1436, 556 U.S. 163, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 2494 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The congressional Apology Resolution, which contains conciliatory and precatory language, does not create substantive legal rights or obligations enforceable against the State of Hawaii, nor does it diminish the State's sovereign authority to alienate lands granted to it in absolute fee upon its admission to the Union.
Facts:
- In 1893, the Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown with the active assistance of United States agents and citizens, leading to the establishment of a provisional government.
- Pursuant to the Newlands Resolution, Congress annexed the Territory of Hawaii, under which Hawaii ceded to the United States the 'absolute fee' and ownership of all public, government, and crown lands.
- In 1959, the Admission Act made Hawaii a State, granting it 'all the public lands... held by the United States' and requiring these lands, along with proceeds from their sale, to be held by the State as a public trust.
- Hawaii state law also authorizes the State to use or sell the ceded lands, provided the proceeds are held in trust for Hawaiian citizens.
- In 1993, Congress passed the Apology Resolution, which 'apologize[d]' for the U.S. role in overthrowing the monarchy and declared that nothing in the resolution was 'intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.'
- The Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HFDC), Hawaii’s affordable housing agency, received approval to remove the 'Leiali’i parcel,' a Maui tract of former crown land, from the Admission Act §5(f) trust to redevelop it.
- HFDC was required to compensate the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), which manages funds from the use or sale of ceded lands for the benefit of native Hawaiians.
- OHA demanded that HFDC include a disclaimer preserving any native Hawaiian claims to ownership of lands transferred from the public trust for redevelopment, but HFDC refused, stating it would 'place a cloud on title, rendering title insurance unavailable.'
Procedural Posture:
- The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and other respondents sued the State of Hawaii, its Governor, the Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HFDC), and its officials in state trial court.
- Respondents sought an injunction to prevent the selling or transferring of the Leiali’i parcel and any other ceded lands until native Hawaiians’ claims to these lands were finally determined.
- The state trial court entered judgment against OHA and the other respondents.
- OHA and the other respondents appealed to the Supreme Court of Hawaii.
- The Supreme Court of Hawaii vacated the trial court's ruling, relying on the Apology Resolution, and granted the injunction, rejecting the petitioners' argument that the Admission Act and state law explicitly give the State power to sell ceded lands.
- The State of Hawaii, et al., filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.
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 congressional Apology Resolution, which acknowledges the United States' role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, strip the State of Hawaii of its sovereign authority to alienate lands ceded to it by the United States upon statehood?
Opinions:
Majority - Alito, J.
No, the Apology Resolution did not strip Hawaii of its sovereign authority to alienate the lands granted to it upon its admission to the Union. The Court first established jurisdiction, noting that the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision 'plainly held' that its decision was 'dictate[d]' by federal law, specifically the Apology Resolution. Turning to the merits, the Court found that the resolution's substantive provisions use only conciliatory or precatory verbs, such as 'acknowledge,' 'recognize,' 'apologize,' 'express commitment,' and 'urge,' which are not the language Congress uses to create substantive rights enforceable against co-sovereign States. Furthermore, Section 3 of the Apology Resolution is an express disclaimer concerning 'claims against the United States,' and there is no justification for interpreting it as an affirmative recognition of claims against the State of Hawaii. The Court also rejected reliance on the resolution's 37 preambular 'whereas' clauses, explaining that such clauses cannot bear significant legal weight or create operative effect, citing District of Columbia v. Heller. Even if they could, these clauses do not manifest a 'clear and manifest' intention to amend or repeal Hawaii’s rights and obligations under the Admission Act, which would be required for such a repeal by implication, per National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife. Finally, the Court noted that interpreting the Apology Resolution to retroactively 'cloud' Hawaii’s title to its sovereign lands decades after statehood would raise grave constitutional concerns, citing Idaho v. United States, and applied the canon of constitutional avoidance to reject such an interpretation.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the interpretive limits of congressional resolutions, particularly those that are largely symbolic or conciliatory in nature. It establishes that such resolutions do not automatically create substantive legal rights or alter existing statutory frameworks without explicit and unambiguous operative language. The ruling reinforces the principle that 'whereas' clauses primarily serve as recitals of background and do not create legal obligations. Furthermore, the decision underscores the constitutional protection afforded to state land titles acquired upon statehood, making it exceptionally difficult for Congress to retroactively diminish or 'cloud' such titles without raising serious constitutional questions, thereby affirming state sovereignty over its public lands.
