▪ Whoa! That Was Fast: HAWSCT Reverses Superferry EIS Case 5 Hours After Orals

Supreme Court oral argument at 9am, order reversing the lower court at 3pm.

If only all appeals reached decision this quickly.

In what must be a record (especially in the Hawaii Supreme Court, which had in the past few years become legendary for the length of time it considered some cases), the Court issued a unanimous order in the "Superferry EIS" case.  Bottom line: the State should have required the interisland ferry service to undertake an environmental review.  Opinion to follow.

The Supreme Court briefs of the parties are posted here.

Summary from the Honolulu Advertiser here.  The Star-Bulletin's write up is here.  Superferry still says the service will commence four days from now. 

Seriously, though: the procedure followed by the Court is not all that unusual, if the decision's swiftness is.  In cases where appellate courts are faced with looming practical deadlines such as this one (as noted above, Superferry service is/was set to commence in four days), it often makes sense to issue a quick order, with a note that a more detailed opinion will follow.   

This procedure can be utilized even where there is not unanimity on the Court, as in the "Save Sandy Beach" case, Kaiser Hawaii Kai Dev. Co. v. City & County of Honolulu, 777 P.2d 244 (Haw. 1989), a decision in which I was part of the litigation and appellate team that prevailed in the Hawaii Supreme Court.  That case involved the legality of zoning by initiative, which was an issue of huge public concern in the late 1980s.  We were faced with similar deadlines, and the Court quickly issued an order similar to today's, with a note that a detailed opinion would follow, which it did, even though the Justices were split 4-1.

As for the head-snapping speed of today's order, it's not like the Justices haven't had sufficient time to consider the issues even though the oral hearing was only this morning.  The briefing was completed some time ago -- nineteen (19) months to be exact -- thus allowing the Court enough time to understand and research the issues.  The slower pace of appellate litigation often permits judges to reach preliminary decisions prior to oral arguments.