Here:
Office of Hawaiian Affairs Brief
Here is the complaint in Amsterdam v. State of Hawai’i (D. Haw.):
A new state law allowing proof of ancestry to be taken from several sources is expected to make it easier to expand the roll of Native Hawaiians – a move that could help them form their own government.
The law that went into effect Monday aims to increase the number of people on the roll by reducing paperwork and redundancy on various lists of Native Hawaiians such as those at Kamehameha Schools and for homestead land leases, Hawaii News Now reported Thursday.
Article here.
Breann Swann Nuʻuhiwa has published “Government of the People, by the People, for the People: Cultural Sovereignty, Civil Rights, and Good Native Hawaiian Governance” in the Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal.
Here is an excerpt:
Yet “civil rights,” as they are understood and articulated by the federal government, are not necessarily congruous with core Native Hawaiian beliefs about leadership, relationships, and responsibility. Furthermore, as history demonstrates, the wholesale appropriation of American rights principles by the Native Hawaiian people can hinder Native Hawaiian sovereignty and privilege non-community members over community members. Accordingly, the founders of the reorganized Native Hawaiian government must take special care to balance external expectations with Native Hawaiian beliefs and values in order to develop an approach to civil rights that maximizes Native Hawaiian sovereignty. This article seeks to provide information and analysis that may be of use to the Native Hawaiian convention participants as they design a civil rights approach.
The Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution has published “Hawaiian Land Disputes: How the Uncertainty of the Native Hawaiian Indigenous Tribal Status Exacerbates the Need for Mediation,” a student note (PDF).
From the intro:
Many people see the Hawaiian Islands as a paradise in the Pacific Ocean.1 However, most are unaware that history has left an unpleasant and permanent scar on the original inhabitants of the islands, the Native Hawaiians. It is often forgotten that the islands were once ruled by its monarchy. In fact, the Hawaiian Kingdom was not overthrown until 1893,2 and the islands did not reach statehood until 1959.3 Despite this however, Native Hawaiians have never officially been considered an indigenous tribe.4 This lack ofrecognition from the federal government has caused a strong sense of injustice that is prevalent throughout the Native Hawaiian community.5
E. Sunny Greer has published ” Na Wai Hoʻōla i Nā Iwi? Who Will Save the Bones: Native Hawaiians and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act” in the Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal.
An excerpt:
This paper will argue that although the application of the Native American Graves Protection Act (“NAGPRA”) in Hawai‘i is problematic, it is imperative that Native Hawaiians include the care of ancestral remains and cultural objects as integral components of their cultural and political assertion of sovereignty.
Congratulations to Derrick Kahala Watson! Below is his bio, released by the White House on Wednesday.
Derrick Kahala Watson: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson has been an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Hawaii since 2007, and has served as Chief of the Civil Division since 2009. Previously, he worked at the San Francisco law firm of Farella Braun + Martel LLP, where his practice focused on product liability, toxic tort, and environmental cost recovery litigation. He joined the firm in 2000 and was named partner in 2003. Watson was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Northern District of California from 1995 to 2000, serving as Deputy Chief of the Civil Division from 1999 to 2000. He began his legal career at the law firm of Landels, Ripley & Diamond in San Francisco, where he was an associate from 1991 to 1995. Watson received his J.D. in 1991 from Harvard Law School, his A.B. in 1988 from Harvard College, and is a 1984 graduate of The Kamehameha Schools.
From SCOTUSBlog (brief here and embedded in the post):
Corboy v. Louie is a challenge to a Hawaii tax exemption that is available only to those who meet the state’s definition of “native Hawaiians.” The Hawaii Supreme Court dismissed the case on the ground that the petitioners (who are not native Hawaiians) lacked standing. The federal government agreed with the respondents that certiorari is not warranted, for several reasons. First, it regarded the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision as resting on an adequate and independent state ground. Second, and in any event, it alleged that the petitioners would not have standing under Article III. Third, and finally, the Court does not need to review the petitioners’ equal protection claim, which is not properly presented and could be affected by recent legal and political developments in Hawaii.
Petition stage briefs are here.
Derek H. Kauanoe and Breann Swann Nuʻuhiwa have published “We Are Who We Thought We Were: Congress’ Authority to Recognize a Native Hawaiian Polity United by Common Descent” (pdf) in the Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal. Here is the abstract:
In an attempt to fulfill the federal government’s moral imperative, the United States Congress has spent more than a decade considering several proposed versions of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (colloquially referred to as the “Akaka Bill”), which seeks to restore a small measure of Native Hawaiian self-governing authority by providing a process for the formal federal acknowledgment of a reorganized Native Hawaiian governing entity. The proposed Act changes significantly with each new Congress, but from its initial introduction in 2000 to the present, the Act has consistently required that the initial reorganization of the Native Hawaiian polity be carried out by the Native Hawaiian community, united by common Native Hawaiian descent without regard to blood quantum.
You must be logged in to post a comment.