In a big development project such as the $4+ billion Honolulu rail, must environmental review under state law be undertaken taking into account the entire project, or can it be done on a segment-by-segment basis?
That's the question the Hawaii Supreme Court will consider this Thursday, May 24, 2012, when it hears oral arguments in Kaleikini v. Yoshioka, No. SCAP-11-0000611. The circuit court didn't think it needed to be done all at once, and rejected the challenge by the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation to the environmental reviews (the alleged impact of the the project on archaeological sites, including burials).
Here's the short description from the Judiciary web site:
Kaleikini argues that the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project should be enjoined because the Programmatic Agreement and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the project permitted a "phased approach" to the required archeological inventory survey (AIS), rather than requiring that an AIS for all four phases of the project be completed prior to approval and commencement of the project. Kaleikini argues that the phased approach to the AIS violates HRS chapters 6E, 343, and 205A. In response, the City and State defendants argue that a phased approach is legally permissible.
Here are the merits briefs, and the briefs addressing the plaintiffs-appellants' separate request for an injunction pending appeal. First, the merits briefs:
Here's the briefs on the request for injunctive relief on appeal:
This case was transferred by the Supreme Court from the Intermediate Court of Appeals (a process in which the Supreme Court moves a case from the ICA to the Supreme Court, thus skipping the usual ICA-followed-by-cert procedures). Both Justice Acoba and Justice Duffy are recused, and two circuit judges are sitting by designation in their places, so this could get interesting just for that fact alone.
We will attend the arguments and have a report (no live blog this time).
