Arakaki v. Cayetano

• Citation: 198 F.Supp.2d 1165
• Decision Date: 18 March 2002
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 02-00139 SOM/KSC.
• Parties: Earl F. ARAKAKI, Evelyn C. Arakaki, Edward U. Bugarin, Sandra Puanani Burgess, Patricia A. Carroll, Robert M. Chapman, Brian L. Clarke, Michael Y. Garcia, Roger Grantham, Toby M. Kravet, James I. Kuroiwa, Jr., Frances M. Nichols, Donna Malia Scaff, Jack H. Scaff, Allen H. Teshima, Thurston Twigg-Smith, Plaintiffs, v. Benjamin J. CAYETANO in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaii, Neal Miyahira, in his official capacity as director of the Dept. of Budget and Finance, Glenn Okimoto, in his official capacity as State Comptroller and Director of Dept. of Accounting and General Services, Gilbert Coloma-Agaran, in his official capacity as Chariman of Board of Land and Natural Resources, James J. Nakatani, on his official capacity as Direcotr of Dept. of Agriculture, Seiji F. Naya, in his official capacity as director of Dept. of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, Brian Minaai, in his official capacity as Director of Dept. of Transportation, Defendants. Haunani Apoliona, chairman, and Rowena Akana, Donald B. Cataluna, Linda Dela Cruz, Clayton Hee, Colette Y.P. Machado, Charles Ota, Oswald Stender, and John D. Waihe`e, IV in their official capacities as trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, State Defendants. Raynard C. Soon, Chairman, and Wonda Mae Agpalsa, Henry Cho, Thomas P. Contrades, Rockne C. Freitas, Herring K. Kalua, Milton, PA, and John A.H. Tomoso, in their official capacities as members of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, OHA Defendants. The United States of America, and John Does 1 through 10, HHCA/ DHHL Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

198 F.Supp.2d 1165

Earl F. ARAKAKI, Evelyn C. Arakaki, Edward U. Bugarin, Sandra Puanani Burgess, Patricia A. Carroll, Robert M. Chapman, Brian L. Clarke, Michael Y. Garcia, Roger Grantham, Toby M. Kravet, James I. Kuroiwa, Jr., Frances M. Nichols, Donna Malia Scaff, Jack H. Scaff, Allen H. Teshima, Thurston Twigg-Smith, Plaintiffs, v. Benjamin J. CAYETANO in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaii, Neal Miyahira, in his official capacity as director of the Dept. of Budget and Finance, Glenn Okimoto, in his official capacity as State Comptroller and Director of Dept. of Accounting and General Services, Gilbert Coloma-Agaran, in his official capacity as Chariman of Board of Land and Natural Resources, James J. Nakatani, on his official capacity as Direcotr of Dept. of Agriculture, Seiji

F. Naya, in his official capacity as director of Dept. of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, Brian Minaai, in his official capacity as Director of Dept. of Transportation, Defendants.

Haunani Apoliona, chairman, and Rowena Akana, Donald B. Cataluna, Linda Dela Cruz, Clayton Hee, Colette Y.P. Machado, Charles Ota, Oswald Stender, and John D. Waihe`e, IV in their official capacities as trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, State Defendants.

Raynard C. Soon, Chairman, and Wonda Mae Agpalsa, Henry Cho, Thomas P. Contrades, Rockne C. Freitas, Herring K. Kalua, Milton, PA, and John A.H. Tomoso, in their official capacities as members of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, OHA Defendants.

The United States of America, and John Does 1 through 10, HHCA/ DHHL Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 02-00139 SOM/KSC.

United States District Court, D. Hawai`i.

March 18, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

H. William Burgess, Patrick W. Hanifin, Im Hanifin Parsons, LLLC, Honolulu, HI, for plaintiffs.

Charlene M. Aina, Gerard D. Lau, Atty. Gen., Honolulu, HI, for Benjamin J. Cayetano, State Officials, Hawaiian Homes Commissioners.

Thomas A. Helper, U.S. Attorney's Office, Honolulu, HI, for U.S.

Sherry P. Broder, Davies Pacific Center, Honolulu, HI, for Trustees of Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Robert G. Klein, McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon, Honolulu, HI, for SCHHA.

ORDER GRANTING PROPOSED DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS STATE COUNCIL OF HAWAIIAN HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION AND ANTHONY SANG, SR.'S, MOTION TO INTERVENE; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

MOLLWAY, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION.

Plaintiffs identify themselves as individual taxpayers in Hawaii. Plaintiffs seek to stop the State of Hawaii (the "State" or "Hawaii"), the Hawaiian Homes Commission ("HHC"), the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands ("DHHL"), and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs ("OHA") from continuing what Plaintiffs characterize as race-based actions. Specifically, Plaintiffs, some of whom are of Hawaiian ancestry, seek to stop the provision of exclusive benefits to persons of Hawaiian or native Hawaiian ancestry.¹ On the present Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the "Motion"), Plaintiffs ask the court:

A. To restrain HHC and DHHL from issuing any further homestead leases and from expending or encumbering any further funds from the Hawaiian Home Lands trust fund;

B. To restrain the State from depositing any further funds into the Hawaiian Home Lands trust fund;

C. To restrain OHA from expending or encumbering any part of the accounts or assets presently held in the "Total Fund Equity" referred to in the OHA Financial Report (11/30/2001) as totaling $337,985,289;

D. To restrain the State, HHL, DHHL, and OHA from issuing any further bonds or otherwise borrowing any further money for HHC, DHHL, or OHA;

E. To restrain the State from making any further payments to or for HHC, DHHL, or OHA; and

F. To restrain OHA, HHC, and DHHL from expending any further public funds for lobbying, advertising, or other advocacy of the allegedly racially discriminatory goals of OHA and DHHL.

The court's analysis of the Motion is divided into two parts. The court begins by looking at whether Plaintiffs have standing to bring the claims they assert. Standing is a constitutional requirement, and it is Plaintiffs' burden to show that they meet this requirement. With respect to most of the relief they request, Plaintiffs, on the present record, fail to satisfy their burden. The only claims that Plaintiffs establish standing to assert are claims that the State is disbursing tax revenue based on race, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because the court finds standing on at least one claim, the court turns to the second part of its analysis, an inquiry into whether Plaintiffs show that they are entitled to a restraining order. The answer, at least on the present record in this expedited proceeding, is "no." Plaintiffs fail to show that they are in danger of suffering any irreparable injury during the time that any temporary restraining order would be in effect. Because the present record contains no evidence that there is anything that this court needs to restrain during the period that could be covered by a temporary restraining order, the court denies the Motion.²

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.

The parties' differing positions are rooted in the history of Hawaii. This history has been summarized by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 120 S.Ct. 1044, 145 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2000). Although scholars debate various aspects of this history, this court need not, on the present motion, resolve those debates. The court instead sets forth here a brief factual background only to put this case into context.

In the late eighteenth century, there were four different native Hawaiian kings, one ruling each of Hawaii's major islands. The Hawaiians had their own cultural and political structure. The islands were not visited by any European until 1778, when Captain James Cook, flying a British flag, made landfall. Later, in 1810, the islands were unified as one kingdom under King Kamehameha I. Id. at 500-01, 120 S.Ct. 1044.

Under Kamehameha I, lands were controlled by a feudal system. Id. at 502, 120 S.Ct. 1044. In 1839, a successor to Kamehameha I, Kamehameha III, issued the first of a series of decrees and laws designed to accommodate demands for ownership of land and security of title. Although Kamehameha III conferred freehold title to land on certain chiefs and other individuals, he retained vast lands for himself and directed that other extensive lands be held by the government. Id.

On January 17, 1893, the United States overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii. A century later, Congress acknowledged that this overthrow was illegal, and that it deprived native Hawaiians of their right to self-determination. See P.L. 103-50 (November 23, 1993), reprinted in 107 Stat. 1510 ("Apology Resolution"). In 1894, a provisional government established the Republic of Hawaii. Rice, 528 U.S. at 505, 120 S.Ct. 1044.

In 1898, the "Newlands Resolution" annexed the Hawaiian Islands as a territory of the United States. Rice, 528 U.S. at 505, 120 S.Ct. 1044. By this resolution, the Republic of Hawaii ceded all crown, government, and public lands to the United States. 30 Stat. 750. In accepting the cession of these lands, Congress stated:

The existing laws of the United States relative to public lands shall not apply to such lands in the Hawaiian Islands; but the Congress of the United States shall enact special laws for their management and disposition: Provided, That all revenue from or proceeds of the same, except as regards such part thereof as may be used or occupied for the civil, military, or naval purposes of the United States, or may be assigned for the use of the local government, shall be used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other public purposes.

30 Stat. 750.

In 1921, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act ("HHCA"), 42 Stat. 108, setting aside about 200,000 acres of lands ceded to the United States by the Republic of Hawaii and creating a program of loans and long-term leases for the benefit of "native Hawaiians."³ Rice, 528 U.S. at 507, 120 S.Ct. 1044. The purpose of the HHCA was to "rehabilitate the native Hawaiian population." Rice, 528 U.S. at 507, 120 S.Ct. 1044; see also H.R.Rep. No. 839 at 2 (1920) (titled "Rehabilitation of Native Hawaiians") (characterizing native Hawaiians as a "Dying Race," noting that the number of full-blooded Hawaiians had dropped from 142,650 in 1826 to about 22,600 in 1919 (with an addition 16,660 people being "part Hawaiian"), and stating that the death rate was "greatly in excess of that of any other race inhabiting the islands"). The Supreme Court attributed the decline in the native Hawaiian population to the introduction of western diseases and infectious agents. Rice, 528 U.S. at 506, 120 S.Ct. 1044.

Additionally, a congressional Report regarding the HHCA indicated that, since the institution of private ownership of lands in Hawaii, the native Hawaiians (outside the king and the chiefs) "were granted and have held but a very small portion of the lands of the Islands." H.R.Rep. No. 839 at 6 (1920). The report noted that the "Hawaiians are not business men and have shown themselves unable to meet competitive conditions unaided." Id.

In 1959, when Hawaii became the fiftieth state in the union, Hawaii agreed to adopt the HHCA as part of Hawaii's constitution. Haw. Const. art. XII, §§ 2-3. The United States granted Hawaii title to all public lands and public property within the state, except for lands that the federal government retained for its own use. P.L. 86-3 (March 18, 1959), reprinted in 73 Stat. 4, 5 ("Admission Act"). The 200,000 or so acres set aside by the HHCA for the benefit of native Hawaiians was granted to Hawaii.⁴ Rice, 528 U.S. at 507, 120 S.Ct. 1044. These public lands, as well as the proceeds and income therefrom, are now held by Hawaii "as a public trust." Haw. Const. art. XII, § 4; Rice, 528 U.S. at 507-08, 120 S.Ct. 1044. This ...