Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. State
31 P.3d 901, 96 Haw. 388, 2001 Haw. LEXIS 397 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that allocates state-owned airport revenues for non-airport purposes is invalid if it conflicts with federal law conditioning federal airport funds on the exclusive use of such revenues for airport purposes, especially when the state law contains a non-severability clause that invalidates the entire act upon such a conflict. When a statute enacted to provide judicially manageable standards for a dispute is invalidated, the dispute reverts to being a nonjusticiable political question if no other clear standards exist for the court to apply.
Facts:
- Upon its admission to the Union in 1959, the State of Hawaiʻi received title to certain public lands, known as 'ceded lands,' to be held in a public trust for several purposes, including the 'betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians.'
- In 1978, the Hawaiʻi Constitution was amended to establish the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) to manage assets and administer programs for the benefit of native Hawaiians.
- In 1980, the state legislature enacted a law requiring that twenty percent of all 'funds' derived from the ceded lands trust be paid to OHA.
- The Honolulu International Airport is situated, at least in part, on these ceded lands.
- The State of Hawaiʻi leased airport premises to a duty-free concessionaire, with the rental amount based partially on receipts from sales at an off-airport Waikīkī store.
- After a prior lawsuit was dismissed for lack of clear standards, the Hawaiʻi legislature passed Act 304 in 1990, which defined 'revenue' from ceded lands that OHA was entitled to and included a provision that the entire Act would become invalid if any part conflicted with federal law.
- The State made payments to OHA from airport revenues, characterizing them as a form of ground rent.
- Subsequently, the U.S. Congress enacted the 'Forgiveness Act,' which explicitly prohibited any further payment of airport revenues to satisfy claims related to ceded lands, as such payments were deemed an improper diversion of airport funds under federal aviation law.
Procedural Posture:
- In a prior case, Trustees of OHA v. Yamasaki, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court had dismissed a similar OHA lawsuit as a nonjusticiable political question because the statute lacked a clear definition of 'funds.'
- In response, the legislature enacted Act 304 to provide clear definitions and standards.
- The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) sued the State of Hawaiʻi in the first circuit court (a trial court) for an accounting and payment of its share of revenues from ceded lands.
- OHA moved for partial summary judgment on its claims, including its right to revenues from the Honolulu International Airport lease.
- The State of Hawaiʻi moved to dismiss the case on several grounds, including lack of justiciability.
- The circuit court denied the State's motion to dismiss and granted OHA's motions for partial summary judgment.
- The State of Hawaiʻi, as the appellant, was granted an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi, with OHA as the appellee.
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 Hawaiʻi's Act 304, which entitles the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to a portion of revenues from ceded lands including the Honolulu International Airport, conflict with a subsequent federal law prohibiting the use of airport revenues for such purposes, thereby rendering Act 304 invalid under its own terms and making the dispute nonjusticiable?
Opinions:
Majority - Moon, C.J.
Yes, Act 304 conflicts with federal law, rendering it invalid and the dispute nonjusticiable. First, the court determines that under the plain language of Act 304, the payments OHA sought from the Honolulu International Airport's duty-free concession lease constitute 'revenue' derived from ceded lands, meaning Act 304 obligates the State to make these payments. Second, the court finds a direct conflict between this state-law obligation and the federal 'Forgiveness Act,' which explicitly prohibits the use of airport revenues for claims related to ceded lands. Third, the court points to Section 16 of Act 304, a non-severability clause which states that if any part of the act conflicts with federal law, the entire act becomes invalid. Because of the conflict, Act 304 is invalidated in its entirety. This invalidation removes the definition of 'revenue' that the legislature had enacted to resolve the ambiguity identified in the prior case of Yamasaki. Without these statutory standards, the court is left in the same position as it was in Yamasaki, with no 'judicially discoverable and manageable standards' to resolve the dispute. Therefore, the issue becomes a nonjusticiable political question that must be resolved by the legislature, not the judiciary.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the political question doctrine, emphasizing that courts will not adjudicate disputes that lack judicially manageable standards and require initial policy determinations reserved for the legislature. It demonstrates the powerful effect of Congress's Spending Clause power, as federal funding conditions can effectively preempt or invalidate conflicting state laws. The case also serves as a crucial lesson in statutory interpretation and drafting, as the legislature's inclusion of a non-severability or 'kill switch' clause in Act 304 led to the entire law's invalidation rather than just the conflicting provision. This ruling effectively returned the long-standing and politically sensitive issue of OHA's revenue share from ceded lands back to the Hawaiʻi legislature for a political, rather than judicial, resolution.
