A land use/cultural practices/religious freedom case was just heard in front of the Hawai’i Supreme Court last week. Coverage here. The oral argument should be posted here, though the link to the case isn’t yet working.
From the Intermediate Court of Appeals decision (in which the three judges wrote separately):
The District Court rejected Pratt’s view that, having demonstrated that he was a native Hawaiian and that he carried out customary or traditional native practices on undeveloped land, the inquiry should go no further and the charges against him should be dismissed. Instead, the District Court took the view that, under applicable Hawai‘i law, “even with such a showing, the Court must reconcile competing interests and only uphold such rights and privileges reasonably exercised, to the extent feasible, and subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights.” (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted; punctuation altered.) The District Court concluded that, notwithstanding Pratt’s cognizable native Hawaiian rights, the exercise of such rights by setting up a residence and “church” in Kalalau Valley was not a reasonable exercise of such rights-in light of the State’s interests in keeping Kalalau Valley a wilderness area, in protecting the health and safety of visitors to the valley, and in protecting and preserving this valuable asset-and the alternative ways that Pratt could exercise his native Hawaiian rights. On this basis, which the District Court framed as a balancing of interests, Pratt’s motion to dismiss was denied.
In a 40 page opinion, the Intermediate Court of Appeals upheld the District Court. Decision here.
Turtle Talk 