Settlement Protects Religious Rights For Hawaiian Prisoners

Links: Civil Beat article by Rui Kaneya, previous posts

Download(PDF): Doc. 778-1 Memo Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement Reached by Counsel on May 14 2015 and Request to Set Fairness Hearing

From the docket report: 02/06/2017 869 EP: Confirmation Hearing Re: Settlement held. Settlement approved. Order to be issued. (Court Reporter Debi Read.) (JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI)(wnn, )

Supreme Court Extends Preliminary Injunction in Akina v. Hawaii

Documents and orders filed in the District court posted here.

Petitioner’s emergency application here.

Link to SCOTUS docket proceedings here.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to approve Justice Kennedy’s preliminary injunction issued last Friday.  We will post further filings when they are made available.

Challenge to Native Hawaiian Self-Governance Election Fails

Here are the materials in Akina v. State of Hawai’i (D. Haw.):

47-1 Motion for PI

80 State Response

83 OHA Response

91 Reply

93 US Amicus Brief

114 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Act 195 is a unique law. It is both symbolic and remarkable. It reaffirms a delegation of authority in the Admissions Act from the United States to the State of Hawaii to address conditions of Hawaii’s indigenous people. It declares that the Native Hawaiian people are Hawaii’s only “indigenous, aboriginal, maoli people.” It is meant—in limited fashion—to facilitate a possible mechanism of independent self-determination and self-governance of Hawaii’s indigenous people. It facilitates—simply by creating a Roll of qualified Native Hawaiians—a possible process for the Native Hawaiian community to determine for themselves (absent any other involvement by the State of Hawaii) what collective action, if any, might be sought by that community.
Undoubtedly there is some “state action.” But, based on the information presented at this preliminary injunction stage, Nai Aupuni’s planned election of delegates is not; Nai Aupuni’s determination of who may participate is not; the planned convention is not. And the state is not involved in whether this process is or will be “fair and inclusive” and “reflect the will of the Native Hawaiian community” for purposes of the Department of the Interior’s NPRM.
The election will not result in any state officials, law, or change in state government. The election and convention might be a step towards self-governance by Native Hawaiians, or it might accomplish nothing of substance. Even if, however, a self-proclaimed Native Hawaiian governing entity is created with a governing document or a constitution, the result would most certainly not be a state entity.
Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating that excluding them from this particular private election is unconstitutional, or will otherwise violate federal law. And that is the only question now before this court.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.

Class Certified in Native Hawaiian Inmate Civil Rights Suit

Here are the recent orders in Davis v. Abercrombie (D. Haw.):

544 DCT on Summary J

644 DCT Order on Class Certification

News coverage here: “Court grants inmate class action in Native Hawaiian religion case.”

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Oklevueha Native American Church v. Holder

Here:

Oklevueha Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

National Council of Native American Churches et al. Amicus Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials here. And here.

Prior Ninth Circuit materials here.

Federal Court Rules against Native Hawaiians Prisoners in Religious Freedom Case

Here are some relevant materials in Davis v. Abercrombie (D. Haw.):

439-1 Huy Amicus Curiae Brief

462 Order Granting Huy’s Motion For Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief

497 Order on Summary Judgment