What to make of the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in the “ceded lands” case, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, No. 07-1372 (Mar. 31, 2009), beyond the narrow holding that the Apology Resolution had no legal effect? Think about these points, if you will:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that a Congressional resolution apologizing for the United States’ role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom was just an apology, and had no legal effect. In an opinion for a unanimous Court authored by Justice Alito, the Court held:
The Supreme Court of Hawaii erred in reading § 3
A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Alito has reversed and remanded the Hawaii Supreme Court in the “ceded lands” case. The opinion is posted here.
More to follow after a chance to read the opinion, but here’s the short story:
“Unlike Bulgo, in this case there is no evidence in the record that any company, other than Superferry, met the definition provided by section 2 when Act 2 was enacted.”
Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Transportation, No. 29035 slip op. at 36 (March 16, 2009) (emphasis added)
If you take away
For those who couldn’t watch it live, the Hawaii public television station has posted a video of yesterday’s broadcast of a discussion about the “ceded lands” case. The program includes Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett who argued the case for the state, and Sherry Broder, the attorney for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
The saga of the Hawaii Superferry has always seemed to be touched by George Lucas.
A certain segment of Hawaii’s population has from the get-go considered the interisland vehicle ferry as nothing less than the Death Star: a whale-killer, a transporter of invasive alien species, and harbinger of a militarized imperialist government. (Others don’t view
We’ve read all 124 pages of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s opinion (warning: massive pdf) and the concurring and dissenting opinion in the “Hawaii Superferry” case, Sierra Club v. State Dep’t of Transportation, No. 29035 (March 16, 2009), and will post about it soon.
In the meantime, enjoy the media scrum which includes reports from
At first, it was a bit odd to see Washington, D.C. attorney Kannon Shanmugam, counsel for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in the “ceded lands” case immediately concede in oral argument that the U.S. Supreme Court should rule against OHA — and hold the Apology Resolution was simply a symbolic statement of regret —
This continues our summary of today’s oral arguments in the “ceded lands” case. The summary of the state’s argument is posted here, the summary of OHA’s argument is posted here, and the transcript is posted here.
What Issues Are Presented?
Assistant to the Solicitor General William Jay argued for the Obama
This continues our summary of today’s oral arguments in the “ceded lands” case. The summary of the state’s argument is posted here, and the transcript is posted here.
Washington, D.C. attorney Kannon Shanmugam argued for OHA. He began by asserting that the issue in the case should be very narrowly drawn: whether