Conflict on Mauna A Wakea

Hawaii News Now

Video ‘Conflict of Mauna Kea,’ a timeline exploring the history of tension over the Thirty Meter Telescope.

Updates here.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs

Mauna Kea.

OHA testimony on the Mauna Kea admin rules.

Draft rules from UH.

Department of Land and Natural Resources

Documents relating to the Thirty Meter Telescope.

Mauna Kea FAQ.

State of Hawai’i, Office of Hawaiian Affairs: “Mauna Kea is a deeply sacred place that is revered in Hawaiian traditions. It’s regarded as a shrine for worship, as a home to the gods, and as the piko of Hawaiʻi Island.

Mauna Kea is also a critical part of the ceded lands trust that the State of Hawaiʻi must protect and preserve for future generations, pursuant to its kuleana as a trustee.

Despite four state audits and generations of Native Hawaiians expressing concern about the threats to Mauna Kea, the state and the University of Hawaiʻi have continuously neglected their legal duties to adequately manage the mountain. Instead, they have prioritized astronomical development at the expense of properly caring for Mauna Kea’s natural and cultural resources.”

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.

Office of Hawaiian Trustees Asking Secretary of State for Legal Determination on State of Hawai’i under International Law

Here are the materials:



Trustee Ahuna letter

Press release here (5/9/14): Continue reading

Native Hawaiian Claim Dismissed by Supreme Court of Hawai’i

Here. Decision is from December, 2013.

Applying that test here, we hold that the circuit
court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint.
We also hold that the circuit court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s December 6, 2011 judgment.