Sherry P. Broder...+8085318411 Mar-11-2002 10:23am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411...

Sherry P. Broder " Attorney at Law

Phone: (808) 531-1411 Fax: (808) 531-8411 E-Mail: [email protected]

TO JON VAN DYKE

. ,', .. ') . . ,'.1 ,".,

, . www·sherrvbroder.com

Davies Pacific Center, Suite 800 841 Bishop Street

Honolulu, Hawaii 98613

March 11, 2002

": ,".

University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection

_J-~ / -

+8085318411 '

Mar-11-2002 10:23am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-t36 P ,'002 F-066 '-......./

EAR.L 1. ANZAI 2904 Attorney General State of Hawaii

GIRARD D. LAU 3711 CHARLEEN M. AINA 1899 Deputy Attorneys General State of Hawaii

. Department of the AttorDey General 425 Queen Street Honolulu, Hawajj 96813 (808) 586·1360

r I

I

LODGED c·

MAR 0., ~002

Attorneys for State Defendants . '.' , .. ' ," '. ..::i;:.:,:~.·~r.;~,:::~'.J~~;>.~.i.,;:~."' .. ,:,~n,t.~':~. and l-lHCA/DHHL Defepdants " . ';. :.i ".i:,t.~t .. :'~~,:; ,),.; . .; . ,- . ; .. t· . ~ -: ~ 'i ::, •• : '.i;; ~ • ,....,. 1 •••

IN THE UNITED STATES P'ISTRICT' COURT"·.:,;',··,>,·:,::·:~·.":' . . " , -. '. ~ .

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

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 1. KUROIWA, JR., FRANCES M . NICHOLS, DONNA MALIA SCAFF, JACK H. SCAFF~ ALLEN H. TESHIMA, THURSTON TWIGG.SMITH,

P I a in Ii ff S t

v.

BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO, in his official capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I, NEAL MIY AHIRA, in his official capacity as DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND FINANCE, GLENN OKIMOTO, in his official capacity as STATE COMPTROLLER, and DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING AND GENERAL SERVICES, GILBERT COLOMAAGARAN, in his official capacity as CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, JAMES 1. NAKATANI, in his official capacity as DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF A G RIC U L T U R E, S E I J IF. NAY A" in his official capacity as DIRECTOR' OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DBVELOPMENT AND

) CIVIL NO. 02·00139 SOM/KSC ) ,

) STATE DEFENDANTS' AND ') HHCA/DHHL DEFENDANTS' ) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION ) TO PLAINTIF~S' MOTION ':FOR ) TEMJlORARY R~STRAINING ) ORDER. AND PRELIM:INAR Y

. ,) INJUNCTION; DECLARATION ) OF JbBIE M.K.M. YAMAGUCHI;' ) EXHIB-IT A; DECLARATION. ) O·FNEAL MIYAHIR.A;. EXHIBIT ) B; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE' ) )

. ) ) ) ) ) ) (J

) ) } } ) ) ) ) ) HEARING: ) ) D ATE: Mar chI 2, 2 0 0 2 ) T I 1\1 E : 2 : 00 p. ni·. , '~ ", , ) JUDGE: The Honorabfe SUIa;~ O'kj ) , Mollway, United :Statcs' ) District .1,u~g~ .. :>.·: ,/" :'

" , ~ ; - !-:/,: ';.. ~' .; .. '

• t

"",;;i~l:lf ~';~:, , :t

e·


· ............ ~:-.

+8085318411 Mar-11-2002 10:23am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.OO3

.........., '-.

TOURISM, BRIAN MINAAI, in his ) official capacity as DIRECTOR OF THE ) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT[ON. )

) State Defendants, )

) HAUNAN[ APOLIONA, Cbairman J and ) ROWENA AKANA, DONALD B. ) CATALUNA, LINDA DELA CRUZ, ) CLAYTON REB, COLETTE Y.P. ) MACHADO, CHARLES OTA, OSWALD ) STENDER, and JOHN D. WAIHE'E, IV, ) in their official capacities as trllstees ) of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, )

) OHA Defendants, )

) RAYNARD C. SOON, Chaitman 7 and ) WONDA MAE AGPALSA, HENRY CHO, ) THOMAS P. CONTRADES, ROCKNE C. ) FREITAS, HERRING K. KALUA, ) MILTON PAt and JOHN A.H. TOMOSO, ) in their official capacities as members ) of the Hawaiian Homes CommiSSion, )

) HHCA/DHHL Defendants, )

) THE UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA, ) and JOHN DOES 1 through 10, )

) Defendants. )

------------------------------------) '.:~ .. , ..

STATE DEFENDANTS' AND HHCA/DHHL DEFENDAN'TS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

F-066


+8085318411

Mar-11-2002 10:23am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.004 F-066

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

T .ABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. i, ii : ,-.-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................... : .......... i~,·;"';~~ ... \H!~J.;.~~;:l~!; r:; ;' i~1 . .. . ~ '.: -:':;, . ~:~.~~ ~~.' t:: '. }{\ ~.) ; :;':t);

A. Platnttffs Do Not Have StandIng to Challenge the [~;:,'~ ':,' ~ ;:: :~., :1:,';,," / ::;:::'~ ~;i, ~ ... :,

OHA and DHHL Laws .... : ................... ;; .... ; .. : ...... ; ............ ~~ .... ; ...... , .... ,.;::: .•. ~;;i+:FH~:;f~;f,.: .. f .

1. Taxpayer Starlding ....................................................................... ~.:~.:.: .................... 1

2. Trust Beneficiary Standing ...................................................................................... 2

B. Plaintiffs Cannot Demonstrate Likelihood of Success on the Merits .................................. 4

1. Rice Did Not Resolve Key Issue ........ ~ .................................................................... 5

2. Arakaki Did Not Resolve Key Issue ............................................................. : .......... 7

3. This Court Should Conclude that the Mancari Doctrine Applies to Hawaiians, and the Hawaiian-Only Programs Challenged in this Case, and Thus Determine that the Hawaiian Classifications in this Case Are Not "Race-Based"

4.

5.

and Are Not Subject to Strict Scrutiny ................................................... ~ ................ 8

i. The Rice decision expressly declined to reject the Mancari doctrine's applicability to' Hawaiians in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment .............................................. 9

ll. The Mancari doctrine fits this case precisety ............................................. 12

iii. Because Hawaiians. like Indians, are distinct indigenous peoples, whose land and sovereignty were taken away to their ultimate detriment, Hawaiians too are "Indian Tribes" under the Indian Commerce Clause, and are thus subject to the M8l1cari doctrine .............................................................................. 17

Even if, Contrary to tl1e Above, OHA and DHIiL Programs Must Be Subject to Strict Scrutiny, They All Survive Because They Are Narrowly Tailored to Serve a Compel1ing InteTest ............ ~.: ..... ;.~ ..... _~~_.2~: ..

Plaintiffs' Breach of 1898 "Trust" Claim is Frivolous ...................... ~.~.: .... :.::.·.~ ..... 26·· .. . , '" -' .. ~ . " . ... j:

C. The BaJance of Harms Does Not Tip Sharply in Favor ofPlaintiffs ..................... · ..... ~ ...... 28

i


+8085318411 Mar-11-2002 10:24am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P,005 F-066

,-""

D. Conclusion: The TROJPreliminary Injunction Should Be Denied ................. ~ ....... m ........ 33

ii


+8085318411 Mar-II-2002 10:24am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.006 F-066

,-,,"

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Adarand.ConstruClor$. Inc. v, Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) ............. I •••• " ••• : ••••• 8, 2S

Ahuna v. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, 64 Haw. 327,640 P.2d 1161 (1982) .........•.•...................••.•..... 14

Alaska ChiRter, 694 F .2d at 1168 (9th Cir. 1982) ................... ... 0 ~ ............ 20

Alaska y, Native Village of venetie, 522 U.S. 520 U.S. 520 (1998) .............. 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••••• 21

" A,a Smitb CQlll. y, FTC, 530 Fo2d 515 (3d Cir. 1976) ........••. ~ ................... 0 •••••••••••••• 31

Arakaki y. State of Hawaii, (D. Haw. 2000) •.• 0 ••••••••••••••••••• 0 0 ••••• 0 • • • • • passim

ASARCQ, Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (1989) •....... , ...... 0 ••••••••• ;. •••••••• 1,2, 3

Cin' of Richard v. JA, Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989) ..... 0 0 0 ••••• 0 •••••••• I 0 ••• 8,25

Doremus y ad. ofEduc. ofHawtbome, 342 U.S. 429 0 ........ 0 .............. ~ ........ 1

Elrod v. Bums, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) .....•............................... I ••••••• 33

GutierreZ: v. Munjcipal Court.. 838 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir. 1988) .................. 0 ••••••••••••••••••• 0 • 0 I •• 33

Hecco Ventures v. Avalon EnerBY Corp., 606 F. Supp. 512 (D.C.N.Y. 1985) . I •• 0 •••• 0 • 0 0 I I •• , ••••••••••••••••••••••• 31

" Hobe v. Cas~, 868 F .2d 69 (3d Cit, 1989) I ••••••••••••• I • • • • • • • • • •••• " •• ~ ••••••••• 33

Hop Hawaiians Y. Cayetano, 183 F .3d 945 (9th Cir. 1999) ..................• " .. " ... 26, 27

Hynes v Crrimes I!ack,ng Co" 337 U.S. 86 (1949) ...... 0 •••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••••• 20

Keaukaba-panaewa Community Ass'n v Hawaiian Home Comm'p, 739 F.2d 1467 (9th Cit. 1984) ................ 0 0 ••••••••••••• 14

MitcheU v. CuomQ, 748 F.2d 804 (2d Cir. 1984) .................. 0 ••••••••••••••••• 33

iii


+8085318411 Mar-l1-Z00Z 10:Z4am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136P:odr F-066

'",-"'

Morton v. Manear, 417 U.S. 53S (1974) ....................................... PHsim

NaJiielua v. Hawaii 795 F. Supp. 1009 (D. Haw. 1990) ..•....... " ................... I • IS

NQrtbea.'item FIQrida Chapter V' City of Jacksonville.

896 F.2d 1283 (11th eire 1990) ...•..... I ...................................... 33

Pgpe VI United States, 323 U.S. 1 (1994) ....... I •••••• , .......... I ••• " •••••••••••••••• 20

PIjce v. Akaka, 3 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1993) ............. I I .......... ',' •••••••••••• I • " 14

Price v. State of Hawaii, 921 F.2d 950 (9th Cir. 1990) ...... I •••• ' •••••••• ~ •• ' .......... I 26

Rendish v. City of Tacoma, 123 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 1997) .....•................• I •••• 32

Rent-A-Center y Canyon TeJeyision, 944 F .2d 597 (9th Cir. 1991) ........ I ...................................... 30

Rice v, Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000) ..... I ......................... I ••••••••••• RYsim

Rice v. Cayetano, 963 F. Supp. 1547 (D. Haw. 1997), 146 F. 23 1075 (9th eire 1998) ....................... I ............... I •••••• I •••• 11

Rice v. Cayetano, 120 S. Ct. ., I ••••••••• I ••••• I ••••••••• I • • • • • ............. I • • • 153 16

Rifkin v. BeaT Steams & Co" 248 F.3d 628 (7th eir. 2001) ....................... " •......• 3

Siegel y. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir .. 2000) .. I .................... I ••• ,: •. ~~.;.>~. :: :"~.:{ .. ,~~ , '~'. - " ~ ,

Sony Computer Entertainment v. CQnnestix COfJ1., . ': " ,. 28 203 596 (9th Cit. 2000) ......................... ..................... ' .... I •

United Stales v, Josmh, 94 U.S. 614 (1876) ........... , , ................................ . 21

United States v. McGQwan, 302 U.S. 535 (1938) ........................................ 17

United States v Sandoval, 231 U .. S. 28 (1913) ........................ ~ ......... 18,21

United States y. Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371 ............................................ 20

Warth v, Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) ....•.....•.......• I ••••••••••••• " ............... 4

Weinberger v, Romero-BarceIQ, 456 U.S. 305 (1982) ...................... , •. ~ ..... 1' •• ' •• 28

Williams v_Babbitt., 115 F .3d 657 (9th eir. 1997) ..•..... ; ..... ~ .... ' ... ' ........•. '. 24, 25

iv


Uar-11-2002 10:24am +8085318411

From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW

'-' +8085318411 T-136 P.008 F~066

" '. "-'

· t: ..... "{I'. ii' t~;{;!ft:~l ~Ii'~!tji ',--.,.

CONSTITUTIONS AND STATIJTES

Article I. Section 8, Clause 3 (Indian Commerce Clause) ................... ' ..... 12, 18,23

A:rticle III ........ . . · · · . . . . . . . 1 2 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , ,

Debt Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) ...•.............................•...... 20

Foreign Commerce Clause (Aniele I, Section 8, Clause 3) .•..............•.•••.... ~. 20

First Amendment •..................••...... ~ ....•... ~ . . . . . . .... ' ..... ' ........ 32

Eighth Anlendment ~ .. "'."".""""""'" ' ..................... i •• ~ •••• ' •••• 32

. Fourteenth Alnendrnent .................••............ ' ...............• 9, II, 12,33

Fifteenth Amendment .................................................... 6, 9, 10, 11

Admissions Act of 1959 ............................................... 3~ 14,23,27

Admissions Act § S(i) ................ to ........ to •••••••••••••••••••• 14, 17, 23, 27

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, (42 U.S.C. § 1996) ............•...... 17

Apology Resolution, 107 Stat. at 1512-13 . to .......................... 15, 16,20, 22,25

Hawaiian Homes Commission Act ("HHCA ") ..................... 2, 10, 14, 16, 17~ 23, 27

HHeA § 213 .......•.•.......•.•..•.•..............•.....•.•.......••• ~.;. .--' ..• 2

Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of2000 ("HHHA 2000") ........ 15, l7,,~O, 22, 2?

National Historic Preservation Act, (16 U.S.C § 470) ........................... ' ..... 17

National Musem of1he American Indian Ac~ (20 U.S.C. § SOq) ............ ~ . ~ .•..•.•.• 17

Native American Languages Act, (25 U .S.C. § 2901) .........•................. ~ . . . . 17

Native Americans Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, (25 U.S.C § 3001) ............• 17

Native Americans Programs Act of 1974, (42 U.S.C. § 2991) ............•............. 17

v

1-' -:, ;:~ l~~~ .-,

,


+8085318411 Mar-11-2002 10:24am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P. 009 F-066

Native Hawaiian Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7901 ......................•........... 17

Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act of 1992, 42 U .S.C. § 11701 .•........... 17

20 U.S.C. § 4441 (program for Native Hawaiian and ; ,.-' '.;>i ,,:,": .... ' . ~ . ;":0:~, ,,:~' , Alaskan Native Culture and Arts) ........................... '-.~'~'.J !:/Fri: ~.~/i~~::i.>:l7·:;t'>.,·:Ci~~H:'~<'

.' .:' ~ ':/:' ~:,t1 fi(:~' ",'1: :;:;~. ~':1~ ~f~~ :.J:~: 20 U.S.C. § 7118 (alloting money for drug and violence prevention programs)~'. ~·i~ • • 0.: ~\ .~ ....... 17

20 U.S.C. § 7902(1) •........•.......•.....•.....•.......•........•........ 15, 19

20 U.S.C. § 7902 (5) &. (6) ...........................•...............•......... 16 .

20 U.S.C. § 7902(13) ..........•.................................. ' ............ 15

20 U.S.C. § 7902(14) .•......••..........................•........•........... lS

20 U.S.C. § 7902(17) ..............•.......•....•.......•.......••.......... 16, 25

25 U.S.C. §3010 ...............•.......•....•........•......•.. ~ ................ 22

42 U.S.C. § 2545 (Native Hawaiian Health Scholanhip) .............................. 17

42 U.S.C. § 3011 (establishing Office for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Programs on Aging) ...................... 17

42 U .S.C. § 3057 ( Native Hawaiian Health Program) ............................. 17, 25

42 U.S.C. § 11701(7)(8)(9)(10) & (11) ., .....•..............•.................... 16

42 U.S.C § 11701(13) .................. , ....•......•......•........•........ 14, 15

42 U.S.C. § 11701(16) ..•...................................................... 14

42U.S.C. § 11701(17) .........•.............•.......................•.....•.. 18

42 U.S.C. § 11701(22) ...••...................................•. , ....... ~ ... 16,26

Hawaii Constitution Article XII, Section 3 ..........................• ; .. ~ ... ' .. '.: .' ..... 23

vi


Mar-11-2002 10:25am

OTHER

+81385318411 From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411

1 Proceedings of the Constituti.onal Convention of Hawaii of 1978

T-136 P.OI0 F-066 '-.-

(Comm. of the Whole Rept. No. 13) at 1018 .................................. 0 ....... 14

1 Ralph S. Kuykendall,!he Hawaiian Kinedom at 14 (1968) .................. 0 .................. 19

1898 Newlands Resolution ............................. .. 0 ...... 0 ............. 0 ............ 2, 26

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of1971 .....•.....•.......•.•..• :",{i);i!fu~!i ~i~ ~i'~, ;~;1!;~1 ~Jliii:~~: A Complete Dictionary of the Englisb Languase (2d edt 1789) ",: .c" '~,~> ~:;) f;~':: '~, ~i'~)~; t~I~:~~~ (~t~-'·

Thomas Sheridan ............................................. ' ....... ~\::.'-: .. ;.<:.~: ~.~ .. :". 19:', '!' '.

American Constitutional Law (3d ed. 2000) ..................... 0 ...... 0 •••• ' •••••••• , • • • .. 1

Declaration ofIndependence'~ 29 (1776) .......... 0 ...................................... 18

li.R. Rep. No. 839, 66th Congo, 2d SessA 4 (1920) .................................... 14, 17

Moore's fedeml Practj~e 3d, § 134.02[1][d](2000) .......... ~ .............. .' .................. 8

M9ore's Federal Practice 3d, Vol. 13 § 65.21 [3] ..................................... ~ .. 32

Notes oftbe State QfVirainia. Thomas Jefferson ............... ~ .•... ~ • i.e ......... ' ." •• 18 '.~

Office of Hawaiian Affairs, "Operation KB Po' e: ,- A Report pn the Statewide Plebiscite to Detennine Preference for a Definition of'Nath,re Hawaiianll (Feb .. 1990) ..................................... , ...... , .... 23

The Honolulu Advertiser Hawai"i Poll (May 31, 2000) [internet website:http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/specialsl hawaiipoll10531.html] ........................................................ 24

vii ;. . ~ \ .: :~


+8085318411

Mar-11-2002 10:25am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.Oll F"066

'-." '."'"'-"'.

A. Plaintiff's Do Not Have Standing To Challenge the OHA and DHHL Laws.

Plaintiffs in this case make no claim that they have sought in the past,

or currently seek, any of the bencfits provided by OHA Or DHHL programs.

Instead, they assert only the most generalized grievance agai11st the fact that

some OHA and DHliL laws make their programs or benefits available only to

Hawaiians or native Hawaiians. Yet none of plaintiffs ever claim they desire

any of those program benefits. In an attempt to overcome this otherwise

pat e n t 1 a c k 0 fAt tic 1 e I I 1st and in g ~ pia i n tiff's m a k e two a r gum en t s for

standing, neither of. which has any merit. ~ ~ .. ..:~...

1. Taxpayer Standing.. ... ~ .'. ·~\",i~ ~l~rl ~·:j:.';?X Plaintiffs assert that they are taxpayers of the State of· Hi waiif~··a·lid~'that' ,.,. i!.

because taxpayer revenue is spent by OHA and DHHL, they have. 5tanding to

attack OHA and DHHL programs. This claim must fail.

First, and most importantly, state and federal taxpayer standing has

been severely limited outside the Bstablishment Clause area. As. noted in

T·ti be, Am eric a nCo n s t j t uti 0 n a I Law (3 d e d. 2000 L at 42 1 - 22:

The Supreme Court has placed beavy restl'ictions on recognition of [ta~payer] standing ... because of the concern that broad availability oft a x payer s tan diD g W 0 u I d j n v it e j u die i a 1 con sid era t ion 0 flit i g ants I generalized ideologicil interests in the operation or government. In general, suits premised on federal taxpayer status ar.e nOt cogniz'able in federal court, since "a [federa"l] taxpayer's 'in.tetest in the moneys or the treasury ... is shared with millions of others, is comparatively minute aDd indeterminable; aDd the effect upon future taxatioD, of any' pay men t sou t 0 f the fu n d s, S 0 rem 0 te, fJ u c t u a tin g and un c e r t aiD, t hat n 0

bas i sis a fro r d e d for (j u die i a lin t e r v en t i 0 11 ] • "' [ A S ARC O. Inc. v. Kadish. 490 U.S. 60S, 613 (1989) (plurality opinion)] . .. The Court has "likened state taxpayers to federal taxpayers, and t h us [it has] r e fu sed toe 0 n fer 5 tan dill g 0 n a s tat eta x payer, a b sen t a showing of 'direct injury,' pecuniary or otherwise. [Id .. 490 U. S. at 614 ]

As stated in Doremus v. Bd. of Educ. of Hawthorne, 342 U.S. 429, 434

(1952), as to taxpayer standing;

we reitcrate what the Court said of a federal statute as equally true when a state Act is assailed: 'The party who invokes the power must be able to show,. not only that the statute i$ invalid, but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some ditec·t injury

.'-;':

.' ~;

.;'

:' ~. . • ~ J' ~.

).


+812!85318411

Mar-11-2002 10:25am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.OI2 F-066

as a result of its enforcement, and not merely tbat he suffers in ~ome indefinite way in CODlmon with peopJe generally}

And, as explained in ASARCQ. 490 U.S. at 614:

Even if (the suit would yield money for the school trust fund], it is pure speculation whether the lawsuit would re9ult in any actual tax relief, for resp onden ts. If they were to prevail, .i t is c:onc:~i va bl e that more money might be devoted to education (rather than taxes being , cut] . ... The p 0 S sib iIi t y t hat t a x p a fer s wi 11 r e c e i v e an y d ire c t pee U Q i a r y r e Ii e f fr a m t his I a w s u j tis n rem 0 t e, fl u c: t u at i n g and uncertain. If '

For these reasons, therefore, plaintiffs' claim to standing ,based upon

their alleged federal and/or state taxpayer status, a status they share with

virtually the entire state's adult population, does not provide them Article III

'standing in this case.

Second, the vast majority of the money spent by OHA is !!.J!!. taxpayer

money, but inc ome and proc ee ds genera tc d from th e ceded I a nds J given to the'

State by the United States upon Hawaii's admission in 1959, to hold in trust,

in part for native Hawaiians. Similarly, the DHHL available lands that are

gi v en ou t to benefic iarie s of the HH CA are not derive d from t,axpayer

revenue I but were set aside by the federal government in 192,O.:fC)r:::'u,.$·e~::a:s '~~'"

homestead leases to Hawaiians. In addition~: much of the I,eVenue used to

·finance DHHL operations comes not from state taxpayers, but from income

earned on the set-aside lands. See HHeA § 213.

Third, plaintiffs have not established that they are even taxpayers,

instead only asserting in wholly conclusory fashion that they are taxpayers,

w,itnout any specific allegations (e.g., ·'1 paid SX in 2001 tor my Hawaii

income tax liability) to demonstrate that they, are in fact taxpayers.

2. Trust Beneficiary Standing

For vi rtua lly the s arne reas ons as gi ven abo ve,' pia intiff~ do not have

standing as beneficiaries of the 1898 "trust". Even assuming that the 1898

tltrust". as defined by the Newlands Resolution .- monies to be "used solely

for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and

2

• .' t ~,


+8085318411

'Mar-11-2002 10:25am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 p. 013 F-066

other public purposes'! -- were still operative (in fact, itls te,.ims·,;h.,v.'~ebeen ?::. j':."

superceded or modified by the Admissions Act of 1959), the oi'eac.tth of"'the

beneficiary group -- "inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands" -- is even greater

than the Hawaii taxpayer base. Accordingly, the very Same problems that

plague plaintiffs' taxpayer standing argument -- objection shared by

"millions," each individual beneficiaries' interest is "comparatively min'ute

and indeterminable," and the effect upon beneficiaries of stopping the

ch all enged e xp cndi ture sis t/ so remote, II uc tua ting and unc ertain" -- app ly

equally, if not mOre strongly, to their trust beneficiary standirig argument.

As with the taxpayer situation, not oDly is each plain'tiff's beneficiary

in t ere s till the 1 8 9 8 II t t u s t rr inc red i b I y n min ute II and 'rr s h are d wit h m i 11 ion 5, "

t b ere is noway for pIa in tiffs to s how t hat j f the m 0 n e y s cur r en t I y fl 0 win g to

benefit Hawaiians were stopped, ~ would directly benefit, however

minutely~ from that money savings, as the savings could be diverted to other

programs for which plaintiffs might have DO interest in (e.g., ed,ucational

assistance to the blind). cr. ASARCQ, 490 U.S. at 614 (denying teachers

association standing to attack state expenditures Wllich deplete school trust

fu n din par t b e c a use It i t doe s not f 011 0 w t hat the r e w 0 U I d b e ani ncr e a s e in

teacher salaries or benefits, [noting that] [t]hese policy decisions might be

made in different ways by the governing officials, depending on their

perceptions of wise state fiscal policy ana myriad other circumstanc.es lt).

Finally, even if this Court, contrary to the above, found trust

beneficiary standing, plaintiffs could use that only to pursue their breach of

trust claim, not their equal protection claim, as the latter claim is' dependent

upon their taxpayer standing position.1

1 ~ R i fk i D v. Be a r S tea r n s & Co., 24 8 F, 3 d 62 8. 63 4 (7 the i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (" pIa i n t iff s m us t est a b Ii s h the dis t ric t c 0 u r t r S j uri s die t ion 0 V ere a c h 0 f the i r claims independently; they are not permitted to use one count of their complaint to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction and a separ:ate count to establish standing").

3


+81385318411 Mar-11-Z00Z 10:26am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P. 014 F-066

.... /

..... ... . .. For the above reasons, therefore, plaintiffs lack Article III standing to

bring this suit. In additjon~ prudential standing barriers also counsel against

this Court bearing this action. As stated in Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490,

499 (1975):

Apart from [the Article III] mlDlIllum constitutional mandate) this Court has recognized other [prudential] limits on the class of persons who may invoke the courts' decisional and remedial powers. First, the Court has held that when the asserted harm is a 'generalized grievance' s bar e diD 5 U b s tan t i a II y e q 11 aim e a s 11 reb y a 11 0 r a I a r g e el a 5 ~. Qf citi~ens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise o·f·.· .. j uri s d i c t ion. : '. -. ~ ~ •.

Plaintiffs' claims in this case fall perfectly within 'Warth's languag'c'~ " .

Finally, it is not as if denying standing to these pa.rticular plaintiffs

will mean that nobody would have standing to challenge OHA and DHHL laws.

Persons who would otherwise qualify for OHA or DHHL benefits (except for

their non-Hawaiian status), and who actually desire them and take steps to

obtain them, could challenge the Hawaiian-only restrictions oJ\those benefits.

There is simply no reaSOn to ~llow these particular plaintiffs, who assert a

claim shared by virtually all citizens of Hawaii, to bring this generalized

grievance, when there are likely persons who are directly and particularly

injured that could bring the challenge.

B. Pla.intiffs cannot demonsttate likelihood of sucoess on the ·merits...

Plaintiffs' suggestion that Rice andlor Arakaki have already determined

tha t the pr ograms a dministere d by OHA and DHHL provide benefi.ts on the

basis of raee and that they must therefore be subjected to strict scrutiny

bord ers on the fIi vo lous. B ec a us e the M ant ari do c trine turn s otherwise

seemingly race-based elassiCications into political Classifications subject to

the deferential "tied rationallyll test, rather than strict scrutiny, Mancari. 417

U.S. at SSS, plaintiffs are essentially saying that Riee and Arakaki have

determined that.the Mancari doctrine is not applicable to Hawaiians at all,

4 :" , : •• J


+8085318411

Mar-11-2002 10:26am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.015/056 F-066

even outside the context of voting fot public officials (~ and serving as

public officials (Arakaki), But it is clear that Rice and Arakaki made 110

such holding. Rice specifically stated th~t it would "stay far off th~t diffi

-cult terrain," 528 U.S. at 519, and Judge Gillmor in Arakaki a1.5"o stated that

the Ie que S t ion 0 f w h c the r the rei sat r us t 0 b 1i gat ion t 0 ~ a r d s. Hawaii a J1 s t h ~ t 'j s

similar to the t'rust obligation with respect to tribal Indians is not a question

t his C 0 u r t nee d tea c h, If A r a k a k i 0 r d era t 1 8 (a D d cit i n g R.!..£.!.' 5 dec i s ion to

also not reach that issue), and that "[t]bis Court is nOt finding that Hawaiians

may not share the $ arne S ta tus as tribal Indians. II !.!t. at 34.

Accordingly, neither Rice nor Arakaki actually reached or resolved the

que s t ion 0 r Man car i .. ' sap p Ii cab il i t Y to Haw a i ian· 0111 Y c I ass i fi cat jon S (0 u t sid c

tl1e context of voting for or serving as public officials). Instead, this Court

s 11 0 U 1 d con c 1 u de, as de m 0 n s t rat e din Sec t ion B. 3, in fr a, t hat the Man car i .

doctrine does apply to this case, and thlls the programs are subject to .the, : ~ "

1. Rice Did Not Resolve K.ey Issue.

PI un tiffs' prine ipal argument for e laimi ng tha t Ric e re so Iv ed the key

issue is based upon B:.iJ:s.'s holding that the "State's [Hawaiian-only] electoral

restriction enacts a race-based 'Voting qualification," 528 U.S. at 517,2 and

that because the restrictions for OHA 'and DHHL program benefits

("Hawaiians" and "native Hawaiians") are defined in similar fashion, those

re S tri c ti ons are rae c-ba se d as we 11. This argument is who lly without merit.

. R j c e 's 5 tat em en t t bat the e 1 e t tor air est r it Ii OD w'.s tI rat e - bas e d" ~ a sma de

only as a rejection of the State's separate arg~ment (that t,ook up'less tban

3 p age 5 0 fit s Sup rem e C 0 U r t b r i e f) t hat the res t r jet ion was bas e don

:z Howevel', ,as exp~ained ,infra, Rice expressly left open the pO$sibility that the Mancarl doctrlne -- In non-Fifteenth Amendment cases •• could turn such an 0 S ten sib 1 y rae i a I c I ass i fi cat ion in to a "p 0 1 i tic a 1" 0 n e ,

5

. .' .... :-' --.. J:: ~ .. ' .

- ;~.:~ ;,_· •.. -~~·1· ; .. :.~ ; ...

' .. , 1


+8085318411 Mar-11-2002 10:26am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 Po016/056 F-066

"-../

"time and place," Dot race. 3 Id. at 514-17. Rice. however, specifically held

out the possibility that the Maneari doctrine would conyert this otherwise

race-based classification into a political one subject to deferential Mancari

rev i e w. I d. at S 1 8 - 2 2 (d e spit e fi n din g c 1 ass i f i cat ion "r a cia 1," m a j 0 r j t y t h_ en

addresses State's Mancari claim). R.ice went OD" to conclude, however, tbat

when it comes to the Fifteenth Amendment, the Mapcari doctrine could not be

usc d to save voting: Ie s tri etions (whether 1 i~iting the fra nchi sc to H a wa Han s

or tribaJ Indians) for :e.ublic office. Id. at 520-22 (ttlt does not follow from

Mancari, llowever, that Congress may authorize a State to establish a voting

scheme that limits the electorate for its public officials to a class of tribal

Indians, to the exclusion of all non-Indian citizens. "). But Rice certainly did

Dot hold that the Maneari doctrine. outside tbe Fifteenth AmendmeDt voting

context. could not turn otherwise race-based Hawaiian-only classifications

into political ones. Indeed, Rice specifically stated that it would not reach

that issue. ruling:

If Hawaii's restrietion were to be sustained under Mancari w~"woulc;1 be required to ... conclude that Congress ... has dete1'mined that' native Hawaiians have a sta.tus like that of Indians in or-ganizedh'"lbo~"s)~:,!~'~' ' It ' is a matter of some dispute, for::instance, w;het:hcor CO"·It.lJ"r7eJs·.::"#:alY~lr~,at"- : the native Hawaiians as it does °the Indian tribes. [citin,g'""9P,:P~si:Ii~g-""" ,0; •

viewpoints] ." We can 5tay Car of'f,thatdiffieult"terrt:aitl~:"~b~o~w:~,!'~.r;.o:", "".

528 U.S. at 518·19. Plaintiffs, in an attempt to mislead this Court. leave the

last crucial sentence out of their quotation of Rice. Because Rice thllS

clearly did not reach the propriety of treating Hawaiian-only classifications

under the Mancari 40ctrine (except in the narrow context of public office

voting), Rice plainly did not resolve the issue of M"aneari's applicability to

the case at bar, which attacks Hawaiian benefit programs, not voting

3 The St a te ha dar gue d (uns uc c e & 5 fully) 0 th at" tb e restri c tion was bo th :r ac i all y undcrinclusive and overinclusive. excluding many Polynesians who did not" i~habit tbeislauds in 1778, and including possibly multiple races from dIfferent parts of the world, including the M"arquesfls Islands and the Pacific Northwest.

6

~ . -. ! t ~"" I'

I

.. ·1'

;'1.

0" ,


+8085318411


' .. .-/

re $ tri c ti OQ S. 4 Ind e e d, R.i.E.s expres 61 y re fuse d to rule out M anea!i',~

bar. when it stated:

we assume the validity of the underlying intimating any opinioD on that point.

528 U.S. at 521-22.

2. Arakaki Did Not Resolve Key Issue.

. ',' ~. '

[OHA] trusts, without

For similar reasons. Arakaki a150 did not resolve the issu~ of Mancari's

app Ii cab ili ty to ben e fi ts Ii mi ted to Ha waH ans. Firs t. as Dote d earli er, Iud ge

Gilhnor specifically stated the question of a trust obligation towards

Hawaiians similar to the one towards tribal Indians is "not ~ question this

Co u r t J1 e e d rea c h II • Sec 0 n d, J u d g e Gill m 0 r a 1 S 0 s tat edt hat II [ t ] his ,C 0 U r t i ~

Dot finding that Hawaiians may not share the same status as tribal Indians. 1I

Arakaki Order at 34.

Finally. Judge Gil1mor added:

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs has argued that, were this Court to conclude that the State of Hawaii may not constitutionally exclude nOn· Hawaii a nsf rOm s e l'V i n gas 0 HAt r us tee s, the va Ii d i t Y '0 f 0 H A its elf would be called into question. This order. however, is limited to the specific guestion put before the Court and goes no further, Whether OHA, a state agency aimed at the bettertnc:nt of Hawaiians as well as the general public, is constitutional. is not a question before this Court.

Arakaki Order at 38 n.13. I ,'r,;,:,}\~:~:',:,

Instead, Arakaki was limited to the issue of res tricting~~n~~~~d~:'\:'-~ 6

Hawaiians, never reaching the different issue of limiting O~.A:;b·e'l .. e.fi't:·;,~·~'"

programs to Hawaiians! which is the crux of this case. Moreover, ev,en'Judge

4 Indeed, Rill could nOt possibly have resolved this issue becau5e if it bad, then it would have also overruled Mancari in the process. Why? In light of the fae t tha t the Ri ce Iuli ng did not tUID on aDY distinc lion between H~waiians and tribal Indians (choosing to avoid reaching the issue of whether Hawaiians can receive the same special treatment tribal Indians receive), if ~ bad in fact ruled that all Hawaiian classificatioQS are subject to strict scrutiny (as plajntiffs Claim), then it necessarily also ruled that all tribal Indian classifications are subject to strict scrutiny, too, a position directly contrary to Mancari's holding.

'I, 't

. '

1 .;. ,,.., •

. ~:If:~~~'i~j


:::.

'Mar-11-2002 10:27am

+8085318411

From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P. 018/056 F-066 ''-,

G iJlmor' s au on in g wa 5 sp e e Ifi e to the trlls tee 5 !tuati on: . ',;, :;./:!;L1:;'j~~H :~~l ji::tP::l~; The Court find~ no reasonable distinction between the.sc:hem:~(tb'~t·~~l·~:;) ;'. ,:: :;; . ~ Supreme Court 0 u t1 awe d in Rice a. nd' the scheme challe~ .• ~~~~.~~;1: .. .'.~~:il~~~~f;k ~i~,)j'&~?·.i~ :i.i~l:k;i~·g If;; Th r h h h 11 "d h' 1" . h" ·,·.r:£, ·,'\,·itt ',,>If ,~ l'-ir't-" "-.~""'!" 'I •. ~:.~ •. ; ..... :;,!.~_.:~ .. ~.:;' .. ~:,< •.• : ......... !! ... , ... ',~.~:'. e act t at t e statutes c a .~:D~e . erere at.e.~o.w,:-q;;~:~~i~~:~~,.ifli~iF;i~.~~~.;! ...... ~ . trustee rather than who may vote for·trustees doe:s .n·Of,!::a:~l\eif::-:f~~e~tR}lice~ :'i;.,·!·.;

Courtls conclusion that Mancari [d'C)'es not apply]. . "T:.},::\~.:>~.;:::';:':·>7.'''· .

Arakaki Order at 28. 5

In sum. ncither ~ nor Arakaki resolved the issue of Mancari's

a.p p Ii e a b iIi t Y to Hawaii an - 0 n 1 y b e 11 e fit P to .8 ram s . T bus, n e i the rca S ere sol v e d

whether the programs challenged bere must be subjected to strict scruti.ny,

versUS the much Dlore deferential Mancari "tied rationally" test. 6

3. This Court should conclude that the.Mancari doctril1eapplies to Hawaiians. and the Hawaiian-only programs challenged in this case and. t h u s de t c r min e t hat the Hawaii an c I a s~;j fi cat ion s i 11 . t his cas ear e not "race-based." and are not subject to strict sCTutinx.

Bee au sen e i the r Ric e nOT A T a k a 1c i c o'n t r 0 1 the iss u e sin ·t h is cas e, t h i's

Court should follow the same basic reasoning Judge E2:ra employed in his

RiCe decision and hold that the Hawaiian classifications in this case ~

subject to the Mancari doctrine. As explained in detail below, and in briefer

form above, see Section B.l, supra, the Supreme Court's decision in Rice did

5. In any event, ATakaki carries no stare decisis efrect, as a "decision of a federal district judge is not binding precedent in [even] the same judicial district, Or even upon the same judge in a different case." Moore's Federal Practice 3d, § 134.02[1][d1 (2000).

6 It should be noted that even if this Court were to conclude, co'n~!~t:y to the above, th a t Rice Or Arakaki somehow did ae tually det ermine that·'··the< ., .. .. Hawaiian-only classifications in tbis case were "race-based~n t'hat:~()ul~:still no t warr ant subj e c ti Q g the c 1 as s i fie a tions in thi s cas e' to strict "s cru tin y.': ' . Under the M anc ad do c trine, otherwise' se emingly rae e- base dclass.ifi.C:.at·ioDs are subj ect to the "tied rationallyll test, not strict scrutiny. For even ·the BIA preferen c e upheld in Man c a ri re quire d that one be "one-fourth' or m()re degre e Indian blood,1I 417 U.S. at 553n.24, an ostensibly IIracial" classification under Rice, Or any other case, yet the Mancari IItied rationally" test still applied. This is simply an alternative way of conslruing the Mancari doc t riD e : 8 s sub j e c tin g c e r t a in" rae e· bas edIt cia s s i fi cat ion s tot b e Man c a Ti 'tticd rationally" test and not Adal"and/Croson strict scrutiny, rather than as converting an otherwise "race-based" claSSifications into a political one, which is the way this memorandum principally construes the Mancari doctrinc. See supra at 4, 6.

8

; . . l<


+8085318411

Mar-11-2002 10:27am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW' +8085318411 T-136 p,019/a56 F-066

nothing to undercut Judge Ezra's reasoning applying the Maneari doctrine in

gen era I to Ha wai ians. Instead, the S upteme Court in Rice. ra ther than

rejecting Manc~rils applicability to Hawaiians, simply rejected Mancari's

applicability to voting restrictions for I?ublic office challenged under the

F i fte enth Ame ndmen t. Sue h voting Ie s trictions, even for triba I Indians, weI e

deemed invalid.'

i. The Rice decision expressly declined to reject the Mancari doctrine's applicability to Hawaiians in the context of the

" ,'~; ;;;{i:L.;;,;~'! ;,;~,; . Plaintiffs' suggestion that the Rice decision has already .. reje;~ct:e·d~j'h;e~': ~ "

Fourteenth Amendment.

application of the Manen; doctrine to Hawaiians, or to OHA;'O(~~~f~:~0>Hawaiian-only benefits is frivolous. First, the Supreme Court ~ade·'Y'ery.;,·

clear that it decided solely the issue of the constitutionality of the OHA

voting restriction, and not the constitutionality of OHA itself, including its

mission of bettering the condition of Hawaiians. Rice. 528 U.S. at S21-22

("The validity of the voting restriction is the only question before us. .

(W 1 e as sume the va lidi ty 0 f the un derlyinA adminis tra ti ve s true ture and

tTustS. without intimating any opinion on that point. ").

Second, the Rice decision expressly declined to rule on th~

applicability of Manead to Hawaiians (Mancari certa'inly appli'c,s to trib.al

7 Of course, internal Indian elections can be limited to tribal Indians because in that different guasi-sovereign scenario DO public office (i.e., governmental entity) is involved, and thus there is no state action to even trigger Fifteenth Amendment scrutiny. Rice. 528 U.S. at 520-21. Contrary to plaintiffs· argument (TRO at 16), however, that by no means implies that public offices/non-quasi-sovereigns -- like OHA, DHHL, or the BIA -- may not restrict their program benefits (or who can become an official or trustee) to trib a I Indians or Hawaiians. After all, M anc ari i tse If uph eld giving a pre fer en c e tot t i b a I I n d ian s as 0 f Ii cia 1 5 0 f the B I A (a n d sur ely the .B I A In a y constitutionally limit its programs to tribal Indians), even though the BIA, like OHA and DHBL, is plainly !!.9.:!:. a quasi-sovereign, but a governmental entity subject to the Fourteenth Amendment. Although plaintiffs are right that "Indian tribes, unlike state and federal agencies, are not' subject to the F oUIte enth ... Amendment. II TRO at 16, plain tiffs con veni ently ignore the mOst critical point: the Mancari doctrine allows preferences by state or federal agencies in favor of certain indigenous groups to survive Fourteenth Amendment sCl·utiny. Nothing in Rice eviscerated that principle, a prinoiple that controls this very caSe. '

, !

9


+8085318411 Mar-11-2002 10:27am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.020/056 F-066

''-"

Indians) or to Hawaiian-only benefits provided by OHA (or DHHL).

If' Hawaii's restriction were to be sustained under Mancari. we would be r e qui red to ace e p t S 0 me beg i n 11 i n g pre m i 5 e s not yet est a b Ii 5 h ~ 4. : tn ou r case: law. Among other postulates, .it would be necessary ~o con~;~~;de :":' that Congress, in reciting the purposes for the transJet .o.'r, ~cu~:~:~~t;q~,~~~:.' State .- and in other enactments,such as the Hawaiiall Homes:"';,;;~,;"',: ~,'".,., Commission Act and the Joint Resolution or 199.3 -- bas (}etermHie-d tha't native Hawaiians have a status liketh-at of Indians iD':~r~g~J!{.~~:df.t'~ibes. and that j t may, and hast de leg·a·t-e,r>~~~he S ta tea,bto ad·:~u:·t:;h~r;~'t', ~to preserve that status. These propo'SitiO'DS would raise quesH.oil·s', 0'[ considerable moment and diffjculty. 'It is a matter ofsomc dispute, for instance, whether Congress may treat the native Hawaiians as it does the In d i a Jl tribe s. [c i ti n 8 opposing views] We e a n s t a yr a r 0 fr r,h at difficult terrain, however.

Rice. 528 U.S. 518-19 (emphasis added, citations omitted). The Rice

majority, therefore, expressly withheld judgment On the iSSUE: of whether

Hawaiian-only restrictions can be treated like Indian-only,restrictions for

purposes of Mancari.

Instead, the Rice majority esse~tially held that the Mancari doctrine

simp ly has no applicab ility when it comes to the Fifteen th Amendment's ba,n

on abridging the tight to vote ~orpublic officials:

The State's .argument fails for a mote basic reason. Even were we to take the substantial step·of finding authority in Congress, delegated to the State, to treat Hawaiians or native Hawaiians as tribes, Congress may not autbori~e a State to create a voting scheme of this sort.

The State contellds that '·one of the very purposes of OHA -- and the challenged voting provision -. is to afford Hawaiians a measure of 5 elf - g 0 v ern a nee," and so it fi t s the mod e 1 0 f Man car i. ltd 0 e s not follow from Mancari, however, that Congress may authorize a State to establish a voting scheme that limits the electorate for its public officials to a class of tribal Indians, to the exclusion of all non-Indian citi~ens.

Rice, 528 U.S. at 519,520 (emphasis added, citations omitted).8

T h us, it i scI ear t bat Ric e t 9 r e j e c t ion 0 f the Man car i do c t r in e' ,$

..: .. '.

applicability waS limited to Fifteenth Am.e.ndment challenges to vO':te:r:5~t:;'J>~ej~g,' .' :;;~-~ :~- ~:, ., ; ~ '.' ::.:I~

8 Because .Riee rejccted the State's proposed use of Mancari even as to "a class .~f tribal Indians. n id., it is clear Rice's rejection was not based upon Hawal1ans not being tribal Indians, but rather upon Mancari not being available •• to tribal Indians !1:. Hawaiians -- in the voting context.

10

, '" :~~

. ?l ~,:, .. ~/:~ ~':~~-.:' .~J ~?~~}j

, .... '"'


+8085318411


'.-.~.

excluded on account of race. Rice expressly did ruu. reject Mancari's

applicability to Hawaiian-only requirements challenged under the Fourteenth

Amendment, leaving the question open.~

Given that Rice did not resolve the question of Mancari's applicability

to Fourteenth Amendment challenges to Hawaiian-only requirements. we are

lcft with the Jower court decisions in ~ as rulings that do directly address

t hat c r it i cal iss u e. Bot h the Haw a i i Dis t ric teo u r t and the N i nth C ire 11 it f 0 un d *. .... ~ ,~, - ~- - •

the Me nc a ri do c trine to be app licab Ie to Hawa Hans and to insti fy'·th:~;. l;-:j~ .. Ha wa i is n e onl}! re s tri cti on under the F Durte enth Amendmen t~ ,-s'~e~:~i~~fZ!~~ ;:~3~'~:'

.. ' . - - " ," . . .... . ~ - ~

Supp. 1547. lSSO-SS (D. Haw. 1997)~ and 146 F.23 l07S J 1080-8'1,108.2 (9 1h

Cir. 1998). Although those decisions technically have no precedential value

because each court vacated in toto its own respective decision in light of the

Sup rem e C 0 U r t 7 S r u Ii n g, l.u d geE z rat san d the N i nth C i r cui t '5 rea son i n g 0 n

this point - finding the MancaTi doctrine to be applicable to the Fourteenth

Amendment challenge - was never repudiated by the Supreme Court in Rice .

. For the Supreme Court majority never had to reach the issue. instead finding

Mancari inapplicable to the Fifteenth Amendment -challenge .. Accordingly,

this Court can look to those two lower court Rice decisions for their

persuasive reasoning On the critical issue, even though this Court is not

bound by tbose decisions.

In sum, this Court is plainly not barred by Rice from holding that the

Man c a Ti do c trin e applies to pI a intiffs' Fourteen th Amcndmen t challe nge to

o H A and D H H L Haw a i ian - 0 n I y pro g ram S • As de III 0 D S t I ate d below inS e c t i o. n

B.3.ii, the Mancari doctrine applies perfectly to this case, and thus the

challenged programs must be evaluated under the deferential tltied rationally"

9 And Ara ka ki only addres s ed the F 0 urteenJh Amendment a 5 to the narrow issue of OHA trustee restrictions. Judge Gillmor even expressly declined to rca c h F 0 u r tee n t bAm end men tis sue s as toO H A ben e fit S. See A r a.k a k i 0 r d era t 3 8 n. 1 3 (d e c Ii n i n g to address con s tit uti 0 n a Ii t Y of 0 H A itself). I na n y. event, Iu dge Oi Jlmor' s dec isi on ha s no s tarc decisis eire ct, se e fo otnote S t supra, and is currently on appeal. . '.

11

.. ":,1 II : .. ~ "


+8085318411 Mar-11-2002 10:28am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.022/056 F-066 -

t est, not s t r j c t s c rut i n y . PIa in t iff s wi 11 1 ike 1 y a r g U e t bat Man c all doe s 11 0 t

,app 1 y be c a us e 0 f S ODle pUTP 0 tte d dis tinction between H a wa i i ans and Indians.

As demonstrated in scction B.3.iii, howe'\fer, no valid distinction can be

made.

ii. The Mancari doctrine fits this case precisely.

The controlling issue here is whether or not laws providing 6pecial

treatment for the indigenous peoples of Hawaii, in fulfillment of a

governmental trust obligation to those people, are subject to the Mancari

do c trine _ If so, then rather than be in g sub j e c t to strict s c rut i n y J J~ e. . "

challenged programs must be upheld as long as the "special tre'atIne~t·.c8:n·'b:~' . '-".; " .

~ _ :'~ • 't .• : " • :., • .' \~:.

tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress' unique obligation toward the

[Hawaiians].'· Mancari, 417 U.S. at 55S.

The Mancari decision, rejecting a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to

an employment preference for Indians in the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs,

fi t $ t his cas e pre c j S ely.

The pUTpose of these preferences. has been _ .. to further the Government's trust obligation'towa'rd the Indian tribes

Resolution of the instant issue turns 'on the unigue 'legal status of Indian tribes under federal law and upon the plenary power of Congress, based on a history of treaties and tbe assumption Of a " 8u ardian-ward u

sTatu~, to legislate on behalf of federally recognized Indian tribes. The pIe n a r y p 0 vi e r 0 f Con g res s t 0 .d e a 1 with the s pee i alp rob 1 e In,S 0 fIn d ian s is drawn both explicitly and impli'citly from the Constitution itself. Article I. § 8. c1. 3, provides Congress with the power to "regulate Commerce __ . with the Indian Tribes" and thus, to this extent, singles Indians out as a proper subject for separate legislation ..... The Court has described the origin and nature of the special relationship:

In the exercise of the war and treaty powers, the United States overcame the Indians and took possession of their lands. sometime~ by force. leaving them an uneducated. helpless and dependent people, needing prot'ection against tIle selfishness of others .... or necessity, the United States assumed the duty of furnishing that protection. and with it the authority to do all that was required to perform that obligation and to prepare the Indians to take their place as independent, qualified members of" the. modern body politic. u

••• _

12

~'.

'; i." .'

;'. ~.~ ;.


~ar-I H002 10:28am

+81385318411

From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.023/056 F-066

Lit~rally every piece of legislation defiling with Indian tribr:s . _ . and certaInly all leg .islation dealing, with the BIA. single: out for special rreatmen,t a constItuency of trtbaI Indians living on or neSr reservallons If thes' la d' d f h " . ' _ . . - - . .... ws ertve rom lstoTlcal relationships and e~ph~lt.ly d,c51gned to help only Indians. were deemed invidious racial discrImInation an entire Title of the United States Code (25 U.S . C.) would be effectiveJy erased and the solemn commitment of the Government toward the Indians would be jeopardized .. .. .

It IS in this historical and legal context that the constitu'tional validity of the Indian preference is to be determined .

Contrary to the characterization made by appellees, this preference does not constitute "racial discrim i nation . " Indeed, it is not even a "racial!! preference . Rather, it is an employment criterion reasonably designed to further tbe cause of Indian self-government and to make the BIA more responsive to the needs of it s constituent groups.

Here. the preference is reasonably and directly related to a legitimate, nonradally based goal. This is the principal characteristic that general l y is absent from proscribed forms of racial discrimination .

On numerous occasions this Court specifically has upheld legislation that singles out Indians for particular and special treatmepte This ~nique legal status is of long standing, and its sources are diverse . As long as the special treatment can be tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress' unique obligation toward the indians. such legislative judgments will not be disturbed . Here , where the prcference is reasonable and rationally designed to further Indian self-government, we cannot say that Congress' classification violates [the equal pro t ection component of the] due process [clause] .

417 U.S. at 541-42, 551-55 (Citations omitted). The above analysis. as

demonstrated below, applies perfectly to the situation presented by OHA and

DHHL. This can be discerned quite easily by simply substituting " Hawaiians"

for "Indians" or "Indian tribes" (and "OHA" or "DRRL " for ·'BrA"). (To Ihe

ext e nt that plaint if f might attempt to reject Mancari's applicability by

h not te chnically a federally recognized distinguishing Hawaiians, w 0 arc

tribe, from Indians in recognized tribes, we address, and reject, that

.. f ) .A.pplying the above-quoted Mancar i distinction in Section B . 3.iil, In ra .

language to this case: ' d ' g OHA benefits and DRRL

a . A critical purpose or effect of prov! In

in Mancari. U tO further tbe homesteads is, like the Indian preference

toward the [Hawaiian people]." Mancari, 417

obligation Go ve rnment ' S trust

13


Mar-11-2002 10:28am +8085318411

From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW ,.~/

//

'u . S. a t S 4 1- 4 2 . to .

+8085318411 T-136 P.024/056

As with tribal Indians. it is clear that the federal government has

F-066

con fer red up 0 D the Hawaii all' P eo pIe a ,; u n i q U ,e leg a J s tat \I. S" .. - a c k now led g i 11 g .

a g u a rdi an -wa rd -Ii k'e "!Be cia I re 1 a ti 011 ship" wi th, and tIU s t 0 bli ~atiOn to~ the

Haw ai ian p e 0 pIe. The Adm iss i 0 D Act t fo r e·.x. amp 1 e I c on v eyed fed &::r ~ I ~ e de d

lands to Hawaii to hold Itas a public trust" for. inter alia, lithe betterment of.

the conditions of native Hawaiians. 1I § 5(f}; gee also Keaukaha-Panaewa

Community Assln v. Hawaiian Homes C~mm'n, 739 F.2d 1467,1471 (9th Cir.

1984) ("The Admissi.on Act clearly mandates establishment of a trust for the

betterment of nati,ve Hawaiians.'9); Price v. Akaka. 3 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th

Cir.1993) ("C-Ongrcss enacted the Admission Act, a federal public trust .. ·

. "); 42 U.S,.C. § 11701(16) ("Under the [Admission Act), the United States.

. rea f fi r m edt h e t r U S t reI at ion s hip w h i c hex i s ted bet wee n t be' U nile d S tat e 5

and ~he Hawaiian people"). The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 42' Stat.

108 (1921), bas also been found by Congress to have '4a£lirm[ed] the trust

10 As to OHA. ~HRS § 10-1(a) {"The people of the State of'H:~'Y*Ji a.D"d ,n: '.~ the United States of America as set forth and approved in the ~Ad"d_ib~~Q:~: Ae.~ .. ·\·· . . j: ····.f.<.'.:,;.:~.· '.J.: ... ' .... : est a b Ii she d a pub Ii c t r u s t w hie h inc 1 u: des a In. 0 n got b err (: s P 0 n sib i lid e s' ~ ~. -, '. ~ . be tt e r men t 0 f the conditions for nat i V e Hawaii a n s . The people 0 f the S tat eo f Hawaii reaffirmed their solemn tTust obligation and responsibility to'native Hawaiians and furthermore declared in the state constitution that tllere be an office of Hawaiian affairs to address the needs of the aboriginal class of people of Hawaiilt); see also I Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawaii of 1978 (Comm. of the Whole Rept. No. 13) at 1018 (creation of OHA "establishes a publie trust entity for the benefit of the people of Hawaiian ancestryl1).

As to DHHL, "the federal.government set aside certain public lands to be considered Hawaiian home lands tQ be utilized in the rehabilitation of native Hawaiians, thereby undertaking a trust obliGation benefiting the abo rig ina 1 p eo p Ie ." A hun a v. De par t men t of Haw a jj an Hom e Land s , 64 Haw: 3 2 7, 3 3 8 t 6 4 0 P. 2 d 1 1 6 1 I 1 I 6 8 (1 9 8 2); see a 1 soH. R. R. e p. No,' 8 3 9, 6 6 t h . Con g.. 2 d S e s s. 4 (1 9 2 0) (" the nat i v es 0 t' the is 1 and 9 who are. '0 u r wa r d s" I

. shou1 d say, and tOt whom in a ~ens ewe are trustees , 'are falling off· r.ap idly in n u m be r san d ma n y 0 f the mar' e i D po v e r t y n ; u You r co Dun ftt e e is; . , . of t h c opinion that (1) the Hawaiian must be placed upon the land in order. to insure his rehabilitation"); 42 U.S.C. § 11701(13) ("Congres$ Bnacted the [HHCA] . . . thereby affirming the trust relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiians"), .

14

,: :: -~ -:. • '~ I._~

1..


+8085318411

Uar-11-2002 10:29am From~SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.025/056 F-066

the Unl'ted S·ates and thc Native Hawaiians." 42 U.S.C. relationship between •

§ 11701(13). CODgress bas confirmed this special relatioDship and .tr~st

ob liga tion to Ha waiians on other ~cc:asions ... See, ~ 20 U. S.C. 1. 7.9.02(.13) ~ :'.

("special relatioDship ... exists betwe.e1'l the United ~tates ~ndt.lie:~ative·

. lIawaiian people"); sec also· id. § 7902(14) ("In reco gnitiono! the "r,dal . relationship which exists between the·'United StateS "anc;l the.Nativ~::~.awaiia"a

people, the Congress has enacted numorO'us 'special provrSiO~$· of la~. for the

benefit of Native Hawaiians in the areas of health, education, labor; and

housing."). Most recently, Congress has stated that Hawaiians have a "unique

status as [8] peopJe ... to whom the United States has established a l!.Y.!l

relationship!' Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 [hereinafter

"HHHA 2000 11] Section 202(13)(B).

c. The Hawaiian people, just like the Indians. are native indigenous

peoples t whose lands were taken "by force, leaving them a ... ' peopl~,

, :", ~

• If

needing protection against the selfishness of others." Mancari. 41i V~;·S .. at i " ;!.

5 S 2 . First. Hawaiians are a dis tine t and indigenous people tOH~,"[:W<';ji:,';'~ii :~11'II~i:~Jt. Second, the Hawaiians clearly did have their lands and soverei.gn~};: ~a:ke:n~. >~;~'~'~F~lf~~1i:~:!f(' . . . ' ~. ':' :":H~:.f;~i;: ?i/: ~;:;- ~ ~}:;~~n; .:;il>~~~:· :~J'~' from them by force, leaving them vulnerable. See Apolog.y .. R~:~.·Q~,u.t~~'~~~::'lo.7.:··:';~~ .... J.~

Stat. at 1512-13 (acknowledging that Hawaiians "never directly relinquished

the ire 1 a i In S tot he i r i n her e n t s 0 v ere i g n t y a 5 ape 0 p J e 0 r 0 v e r th e i rna t ion a I

II See MHHA 2000 Section 202(13){B) (Hawaiians are tithe indigenous people of a once sovereign nation"); Rice v. Cayetano. 120 S. Ct. at 1048 (the first Hawaiian people ... were Polynesians who voyaged from Tahiti and began to settle the islands around A.D. 750. When England's Captain Cook made landfall in Hawaii on his e~pedition in 1778, the Hawaiian people h:ad de vel 0 p ed, 0 v e r the pre e e din g 1 tOO 0 yea r s 0 r so, a c u It u r a 1 and p 0 lit i c a I structure of·their own.")i Apology Resolution, 1075tat. at 1S12 ("Whereas the indigenous Hawaiian people ..... J1); Naliielua v. Hawaii, 795 F. Supp. at 1012-13 (D .. Haw. 1990) (UNative Hawaiians are people indigenous'to t'he S t a. teo f Hawaii, jus t a sAm e ric a n In d ia n s are i 11 dig en 0 U 5 tot hem a i n 1 ~ n d Uatted States."): 20 U.S.C. § 7902(1) ("N·ative Hawaiians are a distinct and ~Digu~ indigenous people with a historical continuity 'to the original· Inhabitants of the Hawaiian archipelago .... ); 42 U.S.C. § 11701(1) (same). . "

15

:: .. ~ ~ .. , 'I- '..,

",-.


, ;

+8085318411

Mar-11-2002 10:29am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW _ ....

lands," that the overthrow of the Kingdon1-was

age n t s . . . 0 f the Un i ted S tat e s , ". and "a polo, g i z [ i D g] toN a t i v e H a w'a i i a Ii s" for

the United States' role in "the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians

t,o s e 1 f·de termill ati on; n also acknowledging that '·1,800 II 000 aCre s of ...

land[] of the Kingdom of Hawaii [were taken] without the consent of or

com pen sat ion tot beN a t i v e Hawaii an p eo pIe," and r e cog n ~ ~ i n g t 11 a, t" the

health and well-being of the Native Hawaiian people is intrinsically,tied to

o their deep fe e lings altd a ttachl11cn t to the land. tI); §ll a Is 0 HHHA 20,00

Section 202(13)(A) (Hawaiians "nevel' relinquished [their] claims to o

S 0 v ere i g n t y 0 r the irs 0 v ere i g n I and s " ) . 12 '

d. The re6U lting suffering 0 f the Ha wai ians is un dispute d. §[email protected]!LAu 20

u . S . C. § 7902 (1 7) (n 0 tin gnu mer 0 use due at ion a Ide fi c i e 11 c i e san dot her

social problem5 among Hawaiian children and adults); 42 U.S.C. § 11701(22)

("health status of Native Hawaiians continues to be far below ... the

g e n era 1 pop u 1 at ion" ); A polo g y Res 0 1 uti 0 n , 1 07 S tat. at 1 S 1 2 (~. the Ion g - ran g e

economic and social changes in Hawaii over the nineteenth and early

12 ~ a 1 S 0 Ric e , 1 2 0 S. Ct. a t 1 0 5 0 (" [ A 1 g r 0 U P 0 f pro res 5 i 0 D a 1 5 and businessmen, with the active assistance of ••. the United SfatesM'l'nister' to Hawaii, aC,ting with United States armed forces, replaced tlle mOluirehy wit b apr 0 vis ion a I go v e r D men t. T hat go vcr n me n t sou 8 h tan n c x a t ion b y the ' United States. On December 1,8 of {he same year, President Clevel.,.:J1c:l;:.;",·' ' unimpressed and indeed offended by the actions of the American' M'iri.s,t.¢t. J: ..

denounced the role of the American forces and called for restora,~io,·n"of,;the. : Hawaiian monarchy. Th~ Queen could not resume her fotmer pla.'c'e,·howev:er,: ' and, in I 8 9 4 t the provisional g 0 vet n III en t est a b Ii she d the R. e p ubi i c 0 faa w a i i. .... According to the loint Resolu'tion [to annex the Hawaiian Island's.]~ the Republic of Hawaii ceded all former CrowD, government, and public lands tot b e U nit e d S tat e s • ); 2 0 U. S . C. § 7 9 0 2 ( 5) & (6) (C 0 n g res s 51 fi n d san d declares" in summary form much of the same facts as recounted above in Apology Resol~tion and Rice); 42 U.S.C. § 11701 (7), (8), (9), (10) &. ell) (same a s above; a Is 0 re rers to "Que en Lili 'U okal ani~ the la wful mon arC h 0 f Hawaii, representing the aboriginal citizens of Hawaii," upon the overthrow, petitioning the United States "for restoration of the indigenous government of the Hawaiian nation, but this petition was not acted upon;" also, Congress finds that "the United States annexed Hawaii •.. without the conseltt of or compensation to the indigenous people of Hawaii or their sove'reign· . government who were thereby denied 'the mechanism for expression of their inherent sovereignty through self-government and self-determination, their lands and 0 c e a nr e sou r c e s . " ) .

16

, pt_::.

'hi.!ti:~ !),

.. ..:


+8085318411 ':,

Mar-11-2002 10:29am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P,027/056 F-066

'--twentieth centuries have been devastating to the population and to the health

. and we 11- b e in g 0 f the Hawaii a n p e 0 pie tI ) • 13

e. Finally, ag is true for the India'Ds, d02ens of "pie~e [s]' of federal

leg i s I a ti 0 n d e a Ii D g wit b" Hawaii a n.s "5 i D g I e (H a w a ji a n s] 0" t (01" 5 pee i a I

t rea t m eDt. It Man car i 4 1 7 U. S '. at S 5 2 . 14.

In sum, because this case fits the Mancari model perfectly, the'

'appropriate standard to apply in evaluatins the constitutionality of the

challenged programs is the "tied rationally" test, not strict scrutiny.

iii. Because Hawaiians. like Indians. are distinct indigenous p e 0 p 1 e s, who s e 1 and and so v ere iJ! n t y we ret a ken a way tot he i r ultimate detriment Hawaiians too are "Indian Tribes" under the Indian Commerce Clause, and are thus subject to the Mal1cari doctrine.

Any attempt to distinguish Hawaiians from other native Americans

subject to the Mancari doctrine must fail. "Congress possesses the broad

power of legislating for tIte protection of the Indians wherever they may be

within the territory of the United States," United States v. MeG 0 wan ,3,0 2

U.S, 535, 539 (1938), "whether within its original territory or_t,e.trito·t.Y~;~; ":', .-.

13 • " . ' ....... ' ~ also RIce. 528 U.S. at 524 ("the culture ~nd way of hfe of [tbe .

Hawaiians was] all but engulfed by a history beyond their control ['and) their sense of loss may extend down through generations"); H.R. Re'p. No. 839, 66th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1920) ("the natives of the islands who are our wards, ... for whom in a sense we are trustees, are falling off rapi,dly in numbers and many of them are in poverty").

14 See. ~ Adm iss ion Act § 5 ( £); Hawaii a n Hom esC 0 m m iss i 0 D Act; H H H A 2000; Native Hawaiian Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7901 et seq.; the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act of 1992,42 U.S.C. § 11701 et seq.; 20 U.S.C. § 4441 (Program for Native Hawaiian and Alaska Na.tive Culture and Arts); 20 U.S.C. § 7118 (allotting money for drug and violence prevention programs); 42 U.S.C.§ 2545 (Native Hawaiian Health scholarship); 42 U.S.C. § 3057 et seq. (Native Hawaii,an Health Program). ~ A!.!.2. Native Americans Programs Act of 1974 (£!ut. 42 U.S.C. § 2991 et

seq.); American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C',-§ 199'6); Na tional Museum of the American Indian Ac;l (20 U. s. C. § SOq- et seq.,);

.Native American Graves Proteetionand Repa.triation Act (25U.S.·C. § 3001~ct seq.); National Historic Preservation .Act (16 U.·S.C. § 470 et seq.); the' Nat j v C .A ~ e ric an Lan g u age sAc t (2 5 U. S . C. § ,_ 2 9 Ole t seq.); 4 2U . S . C, § 3 0 1 1 (establlshtng Office for American Indian, Alaska Native. and Native Hawaiian Programs on Aging).

17


+8085318411

Uar-11-2002 10:30am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.028/056 F-066 ~-_#

subsequently acquired." United States v. Sandoval. 231 U.S. 28,46 (f913).

Indeed~ if there is any &'discrimination" present in this case, it is the

discrimination plaintiff urges upon this Court, namely, denying Hawaiians the

same treatment other indigenous peoples receive under our COJl$titution.

M a nc a r i. tllere fore I must apply to Ha waiians as we 11, if unfair cl{~p a~.~ te

treatment among native peoples is to be avoided. Cf. 42 U.S.C. § 11701(17)

(Congress' "authority, .. under the United States Constit.uti.o.ll~~p.le~:t~J~~H\.i:~. ' ... . . ... ',;,:::",.'~~\:;,:":.:;i::~;~~ i'>~; .... .. .'.

ma tt ets affe c t il1g th e a b ori gi 11 81 Ot il1 d igen'ou s p'e op leG.of th.e>VII}·~~:dL~is.t:.:t:e:s.·

inc Iud e s the au thori ty to legis 1 a te in ma tters affecting the na ti ve p eop lcs 0 f

Alaska and Hawaii. tt).

The broad congressional authority to deal specially with native. peoples

deTives in large part from the Indian Commerce Claus'a, which gives Congress

authority to "regulate Commerce ... with the Indian Tribes." Article I,

Section 8, clause 3. ~ Maneari. 417 U.S. at 552. As explained below,

Hawaiians are "Indian Tribes" within the meaning of that Clause,.

The 1189 'Fra mers of that Clause,. which, gi ve s Congress authority to

deal with the exteusioll of sovereignty ove~ indigenous groups, could not have

intended to deny that autbority to Congress when dealing with indigenous

Hawaiians •• who would present the same basic issues as Indians occupying

the 1789 frontier -- simply because Hawaiians had not yet been encoul1tered.

Sandoval, supra. ,Hawaiians, after all, just like other Il1dian tribes, are

distinct indigenous peoples who lost their lands and sovereignty. to the

expanding U.S. frontier .. See discussion, supra, at 15 .. 16 & footnotes 11 &

12.

And the spec:itic c:onstitutional term ·'Indian Tribes" ac:tually supports

t his vie w . For the Framers us e d II I D d i ann to r e {e r to the abo rig i n a1

"inhabitants of our Frontiers." Declaration of Independence ~ 29 (1776); ~

also Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia 100 (William Peden edt

18

. ..

. ' ·.,1 : •.•. :, ;.: .:

~ • ~: :~: _:(, 1 _', f


'/

+8085318411

Mar-11-2002 10:30am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 , T-136 p.Oia/05S F-OS6

.......

1955) (1789) (referring to Indians as "aboriginal inhabitants of America").

Indeed, Captain Cook and his crew ca'lled the Islanders who greeted their

ships in 1778 "Indians." 1 Ralpb S. Kuykendall, The Hawaiian Kingdom at

14 (1968) (quoting officer journal).

The W 0 r d "t rib e" a 1 5 0 ' s h 0 u 1 din c Iud e Haw a i ian 5, for at the tl m~ .0 'f the , ".k:::','.:

IouDding~ "tribe" simply meant a "distinct body of people as di:vi.deci~':&,~: '. ,',' ,.Jb~l~; ~ '\'

family or fortune, or any other characteristic. tt Thomas .sheri'~~~:,{A":,,,¢~~j:i.i~}if~t~;'~;Witl!J~~t , ", ",', ::({.: '\ ::/~ ;:; t~,:~ ( k: :.':: :'.'; ;>~: '~"; j;":r~~"; ~~1."

n i c ti onary 0 r the En gl ish Langua ge (2 d.,J~d., ,17,8 9) ;,~,als (),':.I~~,,:S~~,~~c:~W'!~;~:;' :~>:~,:~~ :,<:,,:~ "",1;: ".:,:

, ": :,,~ . '.:.:,.. . ,,::c: . ":,'"' ':·,i;<o~·:X!.;;~ ;'Y r~ ~.',}~ .. ;:.t~l: f~<' '>, ;,' 'L .. Johns 0 n, A Die do nary 0 f til e Eng lish Lan~u'a:'ge ,( 6~,h' ~'e,d." i::":8 S'"):l;ts~~~'~~;)':~W ~t,·-~ .' ,

~. . '. '. .. ". " I. _ '. .' ~ _~.

Congress has described Hawaiians as "a distinct and unigue indigenous

people," 42 U.S.C. § 11701(1); 20 U~S.C. § 7902(1), and the Supreme Court

in R.ice agreed (see footnote II. supra). That "tribe" may mean som~thing

else today -- in either legal or lay terms .. - is, of eourse, irrelevant to its

meaning in 1789.

Thus, the fact that Hawa,iians ate not a 'tfeder'allyrecognfze~ lridian

tribe" under whatever the latest exccuti'veuieaning of ,those terms, may b.~ is

c qua 11 y i r reI e van t. 15 W hat III a t t' e r sis t hat Haw II i i'a us!.!£. "In d ian t rib c s "

15 MancaT;t s mentioning in a footnote, 417 TJ.S. at 553 n.24, that the Ind ia n pre ferenc e was given on1 y to'memb-ers 0 f fe dera lly reco gnize d tri'b es, and not to all racial Indians, does not make the federal tribal recognition key to Man car i '5 a p p Ii cab i Ii t y . Fit s t, t b. ere was a c I ~ a r 't rae i a 111 e 1 e Dl fa n t tot h e preference upheld in Mancari: one had to be "one-fourth or more degree Indian blood." IL Second, Mancari upheld the Indian preference because the promotion of Indian sclf-governanee'is tied rationally to fulfilling governmen t '5 un i que 0 b Ii gat i 0 ~ tOt h' c hl d ian 5 • The" fed era II y r e cog n i zed t rib e It

refercnce, under the facts of MancarL simply reinforced this self-governance factor becausc the BIA positions for which the preference applied were posi-t i ons that" admini s t [ere dJ funct ion s or s ervi ce s arfee ting an y Indian tribe." See 417 U.S. at 537-38 (emphasis added). Thus, to have given the preference to all racial Indians, even if they were not tribal Indians, would have actually Un de r cut the 5 elf - g 0'V ern a nee asp e c t t hat un de ria y Man car i, wit h no p - ir i b'a I Indians governing tribal Indians.

That explains why Mancari went on to say that the pref'~ren:~e i~" , '"granted to Indians not as a discrete racial group, but, ra'ther, ,as:'men,t~:~~~,of quasi-sovereign tribal entities whose lives and activities are '8o"~:r~e.d'·~i:the.: , BIA in a unique fashion." 417 U.S. at SS4.' In short, the 'tribal)1nt:.i;~.t~,t)fll;:, ' " was appropriate under Maneari's fact's because the BIA positions~l~,~\V;I.~:ll::;' :;' the pre r ere n c cap p Ii e d go ve r ned tribal In d -1 a n s . In t b i s cas c ~ onih:E'-; ~c:o ntl-\a\r~y ~. ~ ,

, 'I. - • • : ~. #' ' ,

',' ',:,

19

. '1,.'

-'-.' ,

~: ""

, :


+8085318411: ~~:. :~;~: .'

Mar-11-2002 10:30am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 , ,

T-136 p:,030/o56 ,F-066 '.oJ'

within thc meaning of the Indian Commerce Clause. They are. because, as

explained above, they are distin~t aboriginal inhabitants of the expanding

Unit cdS tat e s fr 0 n tie r . 16 And ~ 1i k e In d ian t rib e 5, Hawaii a n $, los t the ir 1 and

and sovereignty, aDd their resulting suffering has led to a Unit~d

S ta te s IH a wa i i an gu ard i an .. war d·li ke sl'e cia 1 reI a ti ons hip. Se e d iscus,s'ioll, , ,

supra at 14-17. Because Hawaiians are ulndian tribes n in this se'n~.e',1

Hawaiians plainly fall within Congress' authority to deal speci~,ll.y ~i.th·:

. d' I 17 JD 1genous peop eSt

because the trust obligation runs to all'Hawaiians (or a natlve,H;aW:'H,lalL, . subset thereof) without regard to their·membership ,in a fe,aer:al.lY:>·;iB;~ognrz~d' 'tribe, that trust obligation iJ. fulfilled by OHA and DHHL p{o;g,ra.m'~/and;: . benefits that likewise ru.n to all such Hawaiians regardless of·theJr :being a me 111 be r 0 f a fed era 11 y r c C 0'8 n i zed t r j be. C f. A 1 ask a C b apt e r ~ 694 F ~ 2 d; at. 1 1 68 -69n.l0 (9th Cir. 1982) (preferential treatment for Alaska natives, who were not t ben a fed era II y r e eo g D h: e dIn d ian t rib e, is n p 0 Ii tic al" Dot It t a ci a 1" eve n though racial criteria are determinative). '

Finally, it would be an odd constitution that would throw out Congres~' 1 a w s t rea tin g Haw a j ian ssp e cia 11 y s imp I y b e c au set hat sam e Con g res s (0 r' the executive branch) had not applied a particular label .- Itfederally recognized Indian tribe" -- to Hawaiians. Those laws treating Hawaiians specially, some even declaring the political status of Hawaiians to bc comparable to that of American Indians, see, ~ HHHA 2000 2'02(13)(D), are far more indicative of Congress' desire to exercise its Indian affairs powers than a mere ,label. lIS Con'gress' authority to deal specially with indigenous Ha~aijan$ finds

, S 11 P P 0 r tin 0 the r pro vis ion s 0 f the COD S t i t'u t i 0 Ii a s we 11. 'T h e s e inc 1 u d e the Debt Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 1), which c'onfers upon Congress "broad constitutional power ... to define and 'to pay the Debts' ... ' of the United States, , .. including tbose of a "mora}n or "honorary" kind. United States v. Sioux Nation. 448 U.S. 371. 397 (quoting Debt Clause) (emphasis added). See Pope v. United States. 323 U.S. 1,9 (1994). Congress' Apology Resolution, and its other extensive statutory efforts to redress such wrongs, see footnote 14?[g). supra, plainly evidence Congress' recognition of a debt to the Hawaiian people.

Another is the Foreign Commerce Clause (Art. I, § 8, <:1. 3), which aut h 0 r i z esC 0 n g res S to leg is I ate 0 n ace 0 U D t 0 f the s epa rat e "N a t ion" t hat Hawaiians comprised prior to 1778. 42 U.S.C. § 11701(1).

17 Further evidence that Congress has the authority to treat Hawaiians like

other native Amcricans, despite their not being a federally recognized Indian tribc, comes fTom the fact that Congress has historically exercised its Indian affairs powers over indigenous people no~ organized into tribes in an anthropological sense, or not recognized as tribes under then-prevailing de fi ni tions -- and the Supreme Court has upheld tha t exercise 0 f a u,thority. For example, for most of Our history (until 1993), most Alaska Native' V i Il a g c s we r e not r e cog n i zed by the B I A as" In d ian t rib e s • 71 S C 'e H y,il,e s v'. Grimes Packing Co .. 337 U.S. 86 J 110·n.32 (1949) ("Indian tri-be'sdo;;no:il::':e'xis.( in Alaska in the same sense as in [the] continental United State's_~'};"y~t';:fh'e> '

20,

,.

, ,'.,.

...... ,


+8085318411

Mar-11-2002 10:31am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.031/056 F-066 ............

Perhaps most importantly, Congress has extremely broad discretion in

dec i din g wh e the r tot rea t c e r t a inn at i v e p e 0 pIe s a s II I n d ian T rib e 5 . nTh e

Supreme Court, in Sandoval. 231 U.S. at 46 (19.13), stated:

Of course, it is not meant by this that Congre s 5 may bring a comm1;1nity or body of people within the range of [its Indianaff:a~rsJ power b y arb i t r a r il y c a 11 i n g. the m ~,n', In d ian t rib e, but 0 n I y ·th a tin : respect of distinctly Indian communities ~he guC(stiops w,hethtt' to what' extent. and for what time they shall be recognized ,and dealt with as dependent tribes reguirin-s the guardianship and protection of the United States are to be determined by Congress. and not by tbe courts.

Congress has exercised this virtually unreviewable authority by repeatedly

singling Hawaiians out for the same type of special treatment accorded other

native Americans, including Indian tribes, in dozens of statutes. ~ footnote

14, supra. As Sandoval makes c1ear~ regardless of wbether Hawaiians may be

differcnt from other native Am.ericans in certain respects, Congress' repeated

decision to treat Hawaiians specially -- in a manner similar to how Congress '

specially treats fo'rmally recognized Indian tribes -- can only be overridden if

that decision is "arbitrary." That decision, of course, is certahl1y:~;~:t , "

"arbitrary, n given the critical similarities between Hawaiians ,an<;lTri:d;,(~,n,,:, '" . .' .. '." ~. ':..j f' ~ -; •

~,~.~ , ",;,;~)..

t,ribes, including their native indigenous :s,tatus and distin.c,tJ;le;~~""t·~~.~'i'~l1i$~torY . ,

of dispossession and loss of land and sovereignty, and their'resulting

suffering and need for "special consideration and protection. u Sandoval, 231

Supreme Court has never questioned Congress' authority to single out and deal witb Alaska Nativcs as such. £ll, L.K.:., Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 522 U.S. 520,523-24 (1998) (discussing and never questioning the validity of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ot 1971. which gave Alaska Natives 44 million acres of land, and almost 51 billion)"

The samc is true of Congress' effotts with resp'ect to Pueblos, wbo "if, indeed, they can be called Indians," could not "be classed with the Indian t t i b e s , " Unite d S tat e s v. J 0 s e ph, 94 U. S. 6 14 t 6 1 7 (1 8 7 6) . Yet tb e S up rein e Court concluded that despite the significallt differences between Pueblos and othe r In dia ns. Pueb los "ha ve been ie garded 'and ' treated by t,he Unit,ed S ta te s as re qui ri ng spe cia 1 cons idera tion and prot.ection,. like other Indian communities." Unit c d States v . Sandoval; 23 IU . S. 2 8 ~ 3 9, 46 - 4 8 (1 9 1 3 ) . As a result. as long as that congressional determination "cannot be said [0 be arbitrary," Congress had the authority to deal specially with the Pueblos. Id. at 46-47.

21

. ;


Uar-11-2002 10:31am .. +80853184i:t~~:;:,

From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW::r:r~t .. ,:.~:. +8085318411 '-,

u . S, a t 3 9 . 18

In sum, Congress does have the aut h 0 l' j t Y to deal specially' with . . .

Hawaiians. just as it may with formally recognized Indian tribes. A~d' as

demonstrated earlier. Congress has plainly chosen·to exercise: t.bat.:s~ec~a~ . . . ; .'

authority with respect· to Hawaiians, ,by aek~o""l~d.SiDg.i# 'J1:~~~:~~u~i':; i;.: , , • 10 , .. • • • .-, ~ • ~ , • ~ •• " • • •• :. • , •

en a c tme n ts a U sp e cia 1 reI a ti onship" ~n4-·:\~~.~;~t:~ ~ H's.a d.·on: t.o: ~~::,'}~i~ ~~!i~~:~: ~ ", .' '.' .' . :.. . .... . "'1: " .

people, and by actually providing specia~'b,en·~tit.s to Hawaiian:s ·in·'fulfilling . .

t hat 0 b Ii gat ion. S u. p r a» at 1 4 8r. f 0 0 t note 14. Con g res ~ has ex pIa i ned:, ~ hat it

"does J!.9..t extend services to Nati"e Hawaiians because of their race, but

because of their unique status as the indigenous people ... as to whom the

United States has established a trust relationship." HHHA 2000 7 Section

202 ( 1 3 ) (B) . In dee d, not 0 n 1 y has Con g res 5 a n a log i zed its reI at ions h j p . to

native Hawaiian organizations to its relationship with Indian tr~bes, see 25

u . s . C. § 3 0 1 0 (U T b i 5 C hap t err e £1 e c t s the un i que reI a t ion s hip bet wee nth e

Federal Government and Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations .... . '....:,,' ~ ,~. - :.;

,.'

."), but it bas recently e"pressly stated that "the .. political st.a'~·J:ls,o.(;;~~ti~:~! : ... ~ .. ".:, :':~:';! ; , ':' . '. '. ':'.;~ ,: : .:.~:' ;::;'~~ .,' ~'; 0':<';;': > .. .', :;~ <,. '.!'

Hawaii a oS is co mpa r abl e to tb at or Amerit:fln In dl.a-.... s·.":.'~:~~~~·:~~~~~'~~~lt~:P::~.::·':,:··~!~ ;·jL,.!t, .~ ;, .. ' .. ~,. ': : .: .. <, ~'~1:: ~!.: ~ '~',' ~:: \ :~I ~'S/~ ~~~; F~' ~'~,: ;,~ ,~~~~~·i r" ~f !i~ ~ i:~t;:: ~~,. -j s~ : .:~"~: . .

IB The fa c t tha t Ha waj i a nS ma y. not cu'r~e~l) yba ve an, 'exis tin-g"~;J.~'~~~~~~~l~~~;~~!f~~~:~~;T' ;;i~::1:; :{.:'-' s e If-go verni ng structure, unlike ,the lndfant "W'iih the frtr'fba·f;gbV~ey~P.i~~~~';· :!::' '.' :>' '::,::,' ~ >.'; cannot defeat Congress' authority to deal.with Hawaiians specia.1l.i.:'~:~'ir,st~ in' .' ,. ". light of the indigenous and distinct status of Hawaiians, theiJ' loss o'f land a J1 d 5 0 V ere i g n t y, an d the i r nee d for s p e cia 1 pro tee t j 011 •• c r i tic a 1 characteristics shared with Indians ... surely the mere absence of an overall g 0 v ern i n g 6 t r u c t u red 0 e s not soc h an get he j r sit u a t ion as to. m a k e it

. u ar bitrary'7 for Congress to deal specially with Hawaiians. Second, 'no cases have ever suggested that the presence of a full governing structllre. is critical to Congres s ., authority under i Is Indian affairs powers to deal specially with in dig e no usn a t i v e Am e ric an s . Third. i twa s the 'U nit e d S tat e s its el f t hat . brought about the deprivation of the Hawaiians" self-governin'g structure. See Apology Resolution, 107 Stat. at 1513 (recogniz·ing Un~ted States' role in the o veT t h row and in "the de p r i vat i 0 II 0 ft h c rights 0 f Nat i "e H a w-a ii a ns to S elf .. determination"); &..i.£!.. (as quoted in footnote 12, supra).'It .. wouldbe ironic indeed if the United States' participation in the d~structiol1:'of thai governing structure deprived the United States ofth~abqity.toameliorate,the. consequences of its own actions. Th'o;COD'stitut1on cannot'make .the very reas on tha t Co ngrcss has c oncl ude d that it has a trust responsibility~- the destruction of Hawaiian sovereignty -- prevent Congress from fulfilling that responsibility.

22

.' , .... ~ ... - '~:

't,


+80853184.~:!~:~~ :. , , ,'" ');:'"J?;f:~~;:'::~!~1::~~I~ff.~~~~~~]I~f~lf:i m~,t:'?wq~~,~ r i', From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW.'~· ': ': ::>. +8085318411"" ":'~\ T:"itB>~~~4ojs1d5,tr. F~066' ',' , Mar-11-Z002 10:31am

..:,., . _.' . :" ,.:~ .. ~: :~ ..........

202(13)(D).

For a,ll thes e re as onS, there fore, Mattc ari mus t app 1 y to Hawaiians, jus t

a s it doe s too the rna t i v e Am e ric an 5. 19

" .

151 Nor s h 0 u I d the m i nO r i t y po sit i on t a k e nb y .Jus tic e s B r eye r a11 d; So u t e'r in Ric e - - 5 U g g est i n g t hat 0 H' A in v 0 ] v e s DO" t r u s t " nor "I ~ d i a n't ri be" ..; -. die tat e otherwise. 528 U.S. at 524.27. First,and. most importantly. tJiat ,'pos.ltiQn was adopted by only 2 of the 9 justices, and i's .thus, not control1~:J1,s'la~<,:' ." . Consequently, because the Ninth Circuit~as ,already detetmuu,d. th'at there 11, a fed era 1 !.!..y.!.!. 0 b Ii gat ion tot h e Haw a i i an p eo pIe, 1.!.!., cit a ti 0 u.S 0 n p. '14, . 9upra, those decjsions arc still binding precedent on the issue' ,ofa ;federal !.!.!!.ll. And Judge Ezra in his Rice detision effectively found "~8waii~ns" to constitute "Indian Tribes?" when he concluded that the Mancari doc·tr1ne applicd to thc "Hawaiian" classificJltion in that case. 963 F. Supp. at 1554 (when Judge Ezra noted that "Hawaiians u are Dot tlretognized tribes," 963 F. Supp. at ISS3, that, of course, had nothing to do with whether Hawaiians are "Indian Tribes lt witbin the meaning of tbe Iudiau Commerte Clause). The United States Supreme Court majority opinion in ~ did noth~ng to repudiate that aspect of Judge Ezra's ruling, instead choosing to stay off that "terrain." See supra at 10.

Even if Breyer's position were controlling, as to DHHL, the Breyer position actually supports the Mancari doctrine's applicability. Because D H H L 's p r inc i p a I ben e fi cia r i e s are •• nat i v e Haw a i i a ItS n - - 50% 0 r more Hawaiian blood -- they avoid Breyer's obJection that the beneficiary group is too broadly defined to constitute an "Indian tribe." As Breyer himself states, '" [ 5 0 %] Nat i v e Haw a i ian s . . . may b e a n a log 0 u s tot rib e S 0 f 0 the rNa t i v e Americans." 528 U.S. at 526. Furthermore, Breyer's other objection -- that o HAd 0 e s not imp 1 e men t a tr u c I' t r u s t II bee a use (1) § 5 (f) doe 5 not reg' u i re ' any spending for native Hawaiians given the four other permissible, purposes, . ., and (2) that OHA's funding could be cut off by ordi,uary st,at~;:,legffl~~t{o~~_·c·~j :,- .,:l:':-::-.;·.:~:' also does not apply to D HHL. Ii Or the Haw.ai fan, Homes;Co in:tLi,i;.:slo~~J;.A-~l:~,~;··.f'~J::,:'~\:j~: ;~~1t f';j.~ unl i ke § 5 (i), pia in 1 y pro v ide s tha t a vail abl el and 5 are-.,t.o.'t,e;~:u.s:~'~~itp'!:<D.;~,t:lv:~r:'·>:<~,;I~ 3~; :1; ~~2: Hawaiian homesteads, and not for other nO,n'"H,awaiianpublit:':p'·uip'o'~~s:·~HH:C:A··: :'d~::~;:'~;~': '

§§ 207,208(1). And DHHL's land base, unlike OHA's -fundhig-t~e'ai1notb'ecu't ' " : off or used for other purposes by mer'echanges in state legisla:tion.:S:e'e Haw. Const. Art. XII, Section 3 ("the [HHCA] shall be adopted as ,a provision of the constitution of this State ... subj eet to amendment or repeal onry with the consent of the United States"); Admission Act § 4 (same).

Similarly, as to that overwbelming portion of OHA benefits that goes only to Unative Hawaiians" with 50% or more Hawaiian blood (only a very small fraction of OHA money goes to all Hawaiians), Breyer has no problem with t 11 at ben e fie i a r y g r 0 u p be in g an .1 In d ian t rib e . " -

Eve n as tot hat ti n y par t ion 0 f 0 H Abe n e fi t s for ill Hawaii an 5, not jus t ~'na ti ve Hawaiians, n Breyer t s claim that a. group c onsis ting of alL Hawaiians IS not andIndian tribe," was qualified by his. OWn acknowledgement that such a g r 0 up c 0 u 1 d b e an "1 n d i a 11 t rib e, It i f t b e tr i b e its elf , rather than th e U S tat e ~whi~h is n.ot itself.l tribe) .cre.ates thedefinhion." 528 U.S. ~t. 527; see also lA· ( ", Native American trIbe hll9- broad authorIty to define [for 'itself] its membership"). AI~hough the State did create the dcf'inition ofcert"in' OHA bcnefi.ciaries a.s .consisting of all Hawaiia.us,Hawaiiaps themsc:ivcsbave effe,ctlvely ratIfIed such a definition. See ,Office oi:HawaiianAffaiis ' "Operation Ka Po'e:" A Report on the SiItewide Plebiscite to Determine Preference for a Def'inition of 'Native ~awajian' (Feb. 1990) ,{l990 pleb.iscite

23

'" "

; :.~ ": .

,i

" .'~~; ,

f ',' ~r·.~i


+8085318411

Mar-11-2002 10:32am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T -136 P .034/056 F-066 '",,-, . . ... -'

4. Eyen if contrary to the above, aHA 'and DHHL programs must be subject to strict scrutiny, they all survive because they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest,'

Even if this Court were to reject the "rational basis" type review (Le.,

"tied rationally" test) required by Mancari. and subject OHA and DHHL to

striCt scrutiny, this Court should still uphold them because they are narrowly

tailored to serve a C omp'e 11 ing i ntere st. The fed eral go vernment ha.s

recognized a clear trust obligation to the Hawaiian people. See discussion,

supra, at 14 .. 15. To the extent aHA and DHHL fulfill that trust obligation,

thcy serve a compelling interest. See Williams v. Babbitt. 115 F,3d 657.665

," ...

, ,

n.S (9th Cir. 1997) C'We have little doubt that the government has compelliug ': ' ~I .' ~ ~. .' : ::. ,.:". : ... o· 04 ' .. :

interests when it com-es 10 dealing with Indians. In fa CI, ~~~c;r,!/:~j#'~M.i.i~~~!,tj~~~i ~~li,~I~~~J standard may reflect the Court's instinct that mo'st laws f'ay.oriJ1g.I!l9j:,';~:l;.'·.~,~~, ::1?: ".' ::~: .":':~ ... '

• - , 0. • • + • ' ~'. ' :; •• ~_".~.: ~.~:~ ~; ,-{ : ~ ,;' \~. ~~ -~ :~, '~. .:' • > . ~

serve compelling interests."). DHHL al1:cl~O.aA. undeniably r'ulfill th.c(,trQst.·

obligation to the Hawaiian people by, respectively, returning Ha~aiians to

their native lands, and otherwise bettering the overall conditions of

lJawaiians.

And it is obvious, too 1l that limiting OHAand DHHL program

ben e fj cia r i est 0 Haw a i ian son 1 y is n a r row 1 y tail 0 r'c d tofu 1 fi 11 in g the t r us t

o

shows th a t an overwhelming maj ority 0 f Ha"aiialls supp ort' extending sp ec ia 1 treatment to all Hawaiians); see also TbeHonolulu Advertiser Hawaj'i Poll (May 31, 2000) [interpet website: htt,p:llwww~boDoluluadvertiser.eoml 5pe~ials/bawaiipoI1/0S31.html (click on Bstablishing a Blood Quantum for actual poll results)] (91 % of Hawaiians beHeve programs benefiting Hawaiians should be for all Hawaiians, not just for those with certain minimum blood quantum). These historical facts were Dot before the Supreme Court in Rice, and thus 1ustice Breyer's position could vcry well change.

Finally, to the extent the Breyer position could, despite the distinctions juSt made, make this Court hesitant to apply the Mancari doctrine to portions of this casc, his position should be rejected because, as noted at the outset of t his f 0 0 t not e, bin din g N j nth C ire u it pre c e den t T e j e c t s his It not rust" s tan C e • and Judge Ezra has rejected his fino Indiall Tribe tt position as well. In addition, Justices Stevens and Ginsberg in ~ also provide strong repudiation of his viewpoint. ~ B.i.£.L 528 U.S. at S3Sn.l1 &. 543n.lS.

fI A

24

'!


+8085318411

Mar-11-2002 10:32am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW' +8085318411 T-136 P'.035/056 F-066

,-.

obligation to Hawaiians. To allow non-Hawaiians to receive the same benefits

contradicts the entire notion of a special trust obligation to 'Hawaiians.

For similar reasons, OHA and DHHL programs are also narrowly

tailored to furthering a Ie 1 a ted c ompe lling go vernmen tal interest -- na me ly,

Ted res sin g the con g res s ion a 11 y r e co q n i zed,' w ron g s t hat we rei n fli c ted up 0 n

Hawaiians, which include the unconsented to loss of their land and

sovereignty to forces aided by the United States (see quotationsfron:',Apo~ogy . ,~.: .' -. '; .' ,,' \. . . ~.: -'.:- .

Resolution set forth supra, at pp. 15-16), and the resulting ":deva:,s:tiJ~toiilAO~, "

the papulation and to the health and well-being of IheHa'!VaH~np·l'~;~:~~t;.:·:·;;.j:':i .: ; • . • , , ~ " • .' -"; • : •• ': !, " ., ~I: ,', :~ ~ ",: : • ., ; . .. :-

A polo g Y Res 0 I uti 0 n , 1 07 S tat. at' 1 5 1 2 .

Eve nun de r 5 t ric t s c rut i J1 Y rev jew t the ref 0 r e , t his C 0 U t t· s h o'u ld up h old

the OHA and DHHL laws.

Any claim that the much tougher strict scrutiny test required by

.Adarand/Croson must be applied to this ca$e is unjustified. The

Adarand/Croson strict scrutiny test has never been applied in the context of

fulfilling trust obligations to indigenous peoples (Dr redressing wrongs done

to native peoples). As just noted above, :Babbitt'makes clear .th,at"most laws

favoring Indians serve compelling ~ntereSts,tI 115 F.3d a,t 665 n.S, a~

observation wholly inconsistent with application of the Adarand/Croson form

o f s t ric t s c rut i n y . 20

20 If, howe vcr 7 de fen dan t s w ere r e qui red tom e e t the A dar and I C r 0 son for m 0 f strict scrutiny, DHHL Hawaiian homestead leases plainly help to remedy the current tragic housing situation for Hawaiians -- see HHHA 2000 Section 202 (reciting numerous statistics demonstrating that "Native Hawaiians continue to have the greatest unmet need for housing ... in the United States t

.) .. - a result of past historical events imposed ijpon Hawaiians. See Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 507 (2000) (purpo$e of HHCA was to "rehabilitate native Hawaiian populationU); UL.. at 524 (lithe culture and way of' life of [the ,Hawaiian] people [were] all but engulfed by a history beyond their control, [and] their sense of loss may extend down through generations"). '

.OHA programs, too. address and remedy Hawaiians' poorer housing .-:!.U prior paragraph _. edu~ation -- see. ~ 20 U.S.C. § 7902(17) (citing. numerous statistics demonstrating educational defiCit among Hawaiian.s), ineome, and health. See. 5L.,.L, 42 U.S.C. § 3057 ("Congress finds the older Native Hawaiians -- (1 ) have a life expectancy 10 years less than any: o,~.h'er·

.0 •• ,. ' ••

. ' . 25

; .. - ~

".:

, :-/


+8085318411

Mar-11-2002 10:32am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY A~ LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.036/056 , F-066

o f c 0 u r s e, by sat i s fy i n g eve n s t ric t s c rut in y, a (0 r t i, 0 r i. 'f (, r the rea SOD S

just given, aHA an~ DHHL programs easii y satisfy the very deferential

Mancari "tied rationally" standard.

S. Plaintiffs' Breach of 1898 "Trust" Claim. is Frivolous.

Plaintif"f's assert that OHA and DHHL expenditures OIL Hawaiians oDly

are a b rea c h 0 f the It t r u s t" e tea ted b y the 1 8 9 8 N e wI an d s R. e sol uti 0 n , which

provides that revenue and proceeds from the public lands "shall be used

solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for

educational and other public purposes." This claim is frivolous.

Because Hawaiian beneficiaries of OHA and DHHL programs are in,de'ed I~ ~:;·'~"-ll' :~','~:,.\'

"inhabitants" of Hawaii,21 and thek

programs arc easily und.ersto9,d,as:):~rvlng'a ' • • ~ •• :.. • : i • ~ ~ / ~ ••

: '

"public purpose" (regardless of whether some, likePla;i~f;~,r,~~~;~WM~::~~~~'~T~e,~ ,'. ',' .' with that purpose), such progra~s are in,full compl'i~nc~~~:~wi'th 'the,"3~r'ms of the

II t r u st. " T his i s not a cia 9 9 i c b rea c b 0 f t r u 6 t sit u a t ion w her e t r u S t fu n d s are

being spent on !l.QA-beneficialies, or not for a public purpose. ·The fact some

ben e fie i a r i e sma y dis a g r e e wit h the a 11 0 C a ti 0 n 0 f ben e f'i t s a m 0 n,g ben e fi cia r i e s

does not constitute a breach of a public trust.

Plaintiffs are wrong to suggest that, private trust principles apply to

what is at best a public trust. Sc~ Hou Hawaiians v. Cayetan9-. 183 ,F .3d, 945,.

948 (9th Cir. 1999) ("state is not to 'be treated as a private tr~stee ,in the

management of the property entr'Us~ed to it") (citing Price v. State of' Hawaii'.

ethnic group in the State of Hawaii; (2) rank lowest on 9 of II. standard he a It h i n die i e s for e t h n i c g r 0 ups in Haw a i i; (3) are 0 ft en una war e 0 f soc i a 1 s~rvi.ccs and do not know how to go about seeking such assistance; and (4) llve In poveTty at a ratc of 34 percent); 42 U.S.C. § 11701(22).

21 To the extent some Hawaiian beneficiaries may reside on the mainland or elsewhere -- e.g., Hula halaus -- such benefits help to preserve Hawaiian culture, or otherwise help to preserve the Hawaiian race, all of which surely can be re as ona b Iy vi ewed as bene fiting inha bi tan ts 0 f' Ha wa ii (b oth Ha wai i an and non-Hawaiian). In any event, plaintiffs in this suit are not challenging !hc fa.ct that non-inh~bitants may a190 benefit. dI They just want non-Hawaiian 1 n h a bIt ant s to s h are 1 nth e ben e fi t 5 •

26

1. '1_.

I .. -: • • _ ~ i . ~"=:, f· ' ... ~; ~ .

. , ,;;.:,:<;{;: ,(~ ~'f{\;~;/~f~;if 1'\': i·:~·


+8085318411.' ">.

Mar-11-2002 10:33am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 : P .. 037/056 F-066 '-'

921 F.2d 950,955 (9th Cir. 1990»). As to a public trust"Price, ide at 9S5~56,

ruled;

it would be errot to read the words "public trust" to require that the State adopt any particular method and fotm of management for the , ceded lands. All property held by a state is held upon a ttpublic trus~." Those words alone do not demand tha,t a state deal withits:p~:operty in any particular manner.

,\ j

, ;'!';

.. ~ '0

the priorities of [a public trustee ar~l a:' matlet :\Vithin'i~:$ iIn'a~;'ag:';:~e~'t prerogative. The ••• priorities among possible' beneficiarie,s:are ,of a similar character. In compliance with its fiduciary obligations, [the public trustee] could not ignore the beneficiaries of the trust in favor of nonbeneficiaries, ... but it is entitled to determine ill a fair and reasonable way the beneficiaries who qualifY.fot homesteads.

Even in private trust situations, impartiality among beneficiaries does

nOt mean that every beneficiary benefits the exact same amount.' Were it

otherwise, trustees would be limited to distributing checks {or the same

am 0 un t to a 11 ben e fi e i a I' i e s, a san y 0 the r m 0 r e c rea t i v e act i 0 P (e. g ., an

ed ue a ti onal scho la rs hi p pro gram) wou 1 d nee es s a ril y benefit some

beneficiaries more than others. Moreover, 80% of the ceded. land, revenuc.:is " I ~ :~ .: .

:1~::: t:r: t: ° : hi: ~;:: i:: n: e :e:: :iPnOg9: Sat:::.C ~:::i ~a::~.5 S:i o~:.~c,:'~;;riiIt~~;~.I;~l;~~i i~JI1: Ilt~!!li

Second, and equally importantly," the t~rms of the, 189·$,:'fttr,\J.~:1';"':,h·i*~(" , . . "'. '.' "':~.~-'~:-~--'.~ '':!~''"~ , '

been refined Or amended by 1) the Admission Act, which expressly authorized

ceded land revenue to be expended "for the betterment of native Hawaiians,"

Sec t ion 5 ( f), and by 2) the Hawaii a Jl Hom esC 0 mm is 9 ion Act, w hie h pro vi d e d

,that a segment of the ceded lands would be used fot' leases to native

Hawaiians. In short, the terms of tbe "trust" have been modified .or

refined to expressly authorize the Ba~alian-only benefit p:rogr'ai,ns off~red

by ORA aDd DBBL. Under those current terms, therefore, there 'obviously is

no breach.~

22 Plaintiffs, however, try to evade this modification of the "trust" by claiming that the modification should be ignored because it violates the equal

27


+808531841'1 .'

. Mar-11-2002 10:33am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW ''-." ,

C. The Balance of Harms Does Not Tip ShaTply in FavoT ,of PlaiJ1tiffs'.

Because the previous sections demonstrate that plaintiif CIU1J10t

establish "a likelihood of succesS on tbe merits," his request.forpreliDlinary

'injUnction must be denied because he cannot establish that.~'t~e ,b·a~a.~t::~ oftbe

b'ardships tipsbarply in [hi,s] favor." Sony ComputeT &.11te'It'a:intD,~n't·;·~·~.

~nnectix Corp .. 203 F.3d 596, '602 (9t.h Cir. 2000) .. 1J1·deed,·~h·e.b.ajan·ce of

harD1S tips sharply in defendants' favor, altlJough even a "dr~w" ,or Sl~ght

edge to plaintiffs would requiri denial of the preliminary injunction.

The following principal, enunciated in Weinberger v. Romero-Barce]o,

456 U.S. 305, 312-313 (19S2), should be emphasized:

In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity' should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction. Railro ad C omm In v. :eul1man Co., 3 1 2 U. S. 4 9 6, 5 0 0 . T h us, the C 0 u r t has not edt hat It [ t ] he, a war d 0 fan interlocutory injunction by coutts of equity has nc:ver been regarded 8S strictly a matter of rightl' even though irreparable injury may otherwise res u It tot he p I a i n t iff, II and t hat "w b ere ani n j U D C t ion I s ask e d w hi c h will adversely affeet a public interest for wbose impairment, even t e m p 0 r a r i1 y, a D III j u n c ti 0 n bon d e ann 0 teo m pen & ate, t b e co u r t may i D .. '

the pub Ii e i n t ere 5 t wit h h 0 J d r e Ii e r U D ti 1 a fi D a Ide t e r min a t ion: o'f :t he rigb ts of the parties, tho u gb tbe postponemeDt may be bu r.d~:~s~,~e 10,:". tbe plaintiff." Yakus v. United States~ supra. 32.1 U .S.~:~ ·ai,44,Q:::.:I~¢.: - 'c 'i':

grant of jurisdiction to ensure compliance with a 9tatutehardly'··:,·: suggests an absolute duty to do sO under any and all' c;{rc.~:ni'sitin:~~st1'a·Dd a federal judge sitting as chancellor is not· mechanic·allY9 b:}igated'to grant an injunction for every violation of law. :TVAv, ::Hi:l1,;,:43·""Y·S., at 193; Hecht Co. v. Bowles 321 U.S., at 329.'/,,:·; .;,

Issuance of the injunction would prevent Hawaii from continuing to

fulfill its own state constitutional mandate to carry out the HHCA~ and

effectuate OHA's mission. In doing so, an injunction would prevent Hawaii

fr 0 m fu 1 f i 11 in g it s t: 0 n g res S i 0 11 ally r e cog n i 2 edt r u s t 0 b Ii g ~ t ion tot h e

Hawaiian people by 1) as to DHHL, stopping the return of Hawaiians to their

land. and 2) as to OHA, seriously damaging the welfare, livelihood, and

surv ivaI 0 f the Hawaiian peop le by s topping a multitude 0 f pro grams designed

. I' lit protectIon cause. But that position s'ill1ply collapses tlleir b.reach oJ trust .argument into their equal protection ,attack, upon OHA and DHH~ pr~gr8tn·s, ail attack that we have already demohstra-ted" is withoutmc.,rit, g'iven the' Mancari doctrine.

28

. ~ ...

"


+8085318411

Mar-11-2002 10:33am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411

'-

to assure Hawaiian economic self-sufficiency and education. and, to 'preserve

Hawaiian language, culture, and connection to the land. In short, an

jnjunction would obliterate Hawaii's and the United States' "solemn

commitment" to the Hawaiian people. See Man,cari. 417 U.S. at 552, and the

dozens of federal and state statutes recogni%ing that commitm.ent. Of course, '

this harm is twofold. 1) injuring, the State's oWlli~terest in carrying out its'

federal and state constitutional mandate to help the Hawa'Han people, and, of

course, 2) irreparably harming the Hawaiian people themselves, by , " . , ,

threatening not only the extin~don of'their culture and their ties to the laud,

bu t th e s urv i val and perpetuation of the Ha waH an people thems elves. See,

!..:..&.:." Dec!. of Yamaguchi at " 4 &, 9 (forty ,Hawaiian families would lose the

residential lot they were about to receive, as. well as money spent to secure

loans. The loans would also lapse and the recently low mortgage rat~s would

be lost to them perhaps forever).21

Furthermore, an injunction could throw DHHL and aHA officers and

employees out of a job, and interfere with commitments made by DHHL and

OHA, thereby triggering a domino erfect throughout Hawaii's 'cco~om'Y~ See~'

~ ~ at 'f 6 & 8 (thirty-three DHHL employees could lose their··j;~b~);i~'.'>

at V1I 7 &: 9 (over $43 mlllion in capital improvement proji~t{;W'~~;ldli~ halted, and 3S contractors would .not b~ paid for tabor and '~:a';te:ii,al;a,~~eady..

u . ~ ",_ .

supplied or ordered; much of the value of material or work already' supplied

to DHHL would be lost to nonuso, erosion, and vandalism).

And if P I a in ti ff seeks to undo past distribu ti ons, by, fo~ examp 1 e ~

ev icting exi sting DHHL h omosteaders from their lot5, tb at w ould have

obvious and $evere irreparable consequences. Id. at 4f.J 3 (22,000+ people

W ou Id be in danger of be in g hom eless, an dover 1400 agriclllturalor pasloral

23 FurtherDlore, the backlog of over 1'7.000 residential, 13,000 agricultural, and 2,000 pastoral applicants would get worse, with many Dot ,li~ing long eno ugh to ever see their hom estead' mater.ialize. !.!L.. at 'J S.

29 ' ..

'. ~ .

,. ,oi.,

: ~ -:,' . !.

II '

1 • ~"

. ~.


Mar-11-2002 10:33am

+8085318411

From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.040/056 F-066

livelihoods would be jeopardized). Similarly, cancelling OHA loans or grants

C oul d me aD termi n a ti 0 nor d isr,uptioll 0 f 10 an 0 r grant fun ded proj ects,

thereby threatening the economic wen-being of the Ha waiia:u "'o~l1/gr8:nt,." " -' , ,"::; ~."':~ ~;"': >:;"

recipient, as well as potentially subjecting the recipient to,eos.tl.i ,ltg'J't ,,', ." .:,.~.'d/:V'~~·:~', :,: .. ;

4" .' '.

·~~·,:~~;i·:·~ '.~ ~"»~ \ a c '[ion s by third-p arti es.

On the other side of the ,balanc'e', plaintiffs cannot esta~'iis~:-~~l;:

irreparable harlll to themselves.' If DRHL and OHA programs are allowed to

continue until a final decision on the merits (or on preliminary injunction) is

made, Hawaiians will simply continue to receive the benefits of those

'pro grams, but plaintiffs will not be harme d 0 De iota. P lainti trs may cl~i~ that

they suffer irreparable harm as taxpayers if DHHL and OHAcontinuc to

disburse state lands and tnoney in the interim period. rirst, sucb alleged

harm may not be irreparable. for the simple reaspn that the disbursements

could potentially be recovered later (indeed. plaintiffs themselves suggest. ~ ,

e . g .• "r e 11 ego t i at ion" 0 f pas tie a s e s ) . 24 Sec 0 n d t putt in gas ide S 11 C h r e cove r Y a

the barm to plaintiffs is purely economic (not to mention, minute, given the

numbers of taxpayers), and &'ecoJlornic injury alone does not support a finding

of irreparable harm." Rent-A-CenteT \1. Canyon Television, 944 F .2d 597, 603

(9th Cir. 1991), Plaintiffs' harm is thus not irreparable.

Furthermore ll enjoining DHHL from following through on existing

cons n'uc ti 011 con trae ts that build infra structure woul d not onI y no t prevent

harm. but arguably exacerbate it. First, the State would be getting value in

return -- in the form of improved land -- for the expenditures ll and thus if

plaintiffs were to later prevail, the improved land could be sold at higller.-

~. I'

.. ' i

value. Second, failing to follow through on the contracts would only:b.l'i,ng ;< ••

. - .. : .. ,.

lawsuits by the contractors, there~y hurting plaintiffs' own purported inte.rest . .~',

24 Deposits into the Hawaiian home lands trUSt fund, as well as other payments by the State to DBHL or OHA could be returned to the general treasury. Bond-generat~d or other borrowed money could be returned to the general fund as well.

30

....


""08531141/

--25 At is very minimum, therefore,; D~BL should be' allowed to continue issuiug Jeases with the lessees agree lug to vacate the land if plaintiffs were to later prevail.

26 Cf. A.Q. Smith Corp. v. FTC, 530 F.2d 515, 527 (3d Cir. 1976) ("injury u;tbe--iD sotne way, ~pecu1fart"); Recco Ventures v. Avalon Energy Corp.,

~O 6 f. S ~ P p. 5 1 2, S 2 ~ (D. C. N. Y. 1 98 5) (D 0 it rep a r a b 1 e h arm w here t b ere i $ no

hparticularized.harm ).

31

r-/38 P.04//058

'''068 ,'. ' .

. ', \,

\.--.;,.

.' . / .'~, i I

/ I

, I


Uar-11-2002 lO:34am

+8085318411

From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW '- '

+8085318411

--~,

T-136 p.04Z/~56 F-066

' .. -"

the S tat e IS' i n t ere s till fu I f i 11 i n g its s t a i e COIl 5 tit uti 0 n a I and .1 e g i $1 at i v. e '

mandate to aid and better the conditions of tile Hawaiian people, an'

obligation firmly rooted in federal law. And, finally, the severe dislocation

, of OHA and DHHL employees, the impact upon private contractors" and other

third p arti es who ha ve en tere d into arrangements with Ha waiians under the

assumption that they would cODtinue to benefit from DHHL orOHAprograms,

and any resulting domino effect upon the economy in general. all tip the '. ~

balance even further against granting the TROlinjunction.2'7

" ,~

M oreo v er. the pub Ii c intere s t would be hurt in an a dditionl1 \~'~'Y"< :". ';\l.:;~; ; ;~<;: improving the lot of the least fortunate or most at-risk IIl'emb.e'rs:;or.~,9~e:i.~,jY;~~~~~:·:.;~·2\~:\F~~~)~{

. ,:',>; .. :'::,': >n ~:;:,; T::',:· f. :~t>:: ~y\r l~':.';~ ,}, not only good for them, but for tb.e rest ,of society as ·well;r.bY-1.e$·~e:~t~lf~ " . ~ ~:; :": .

. , .. ~ .;:,c;,: ~:';;'. : ' •.

welfare rolls, improv'ing productivity~ andd,ecreasing crime,Yo~na#~"}u'sta

few. Issuing a TRO/injunction, simply put,~rguably hurts everyon'e~:

Finally, plaintiffs claim that the alleged violation of their

con s tit uti 0 n aIr i g h t sis, by de fin it ion, 5 ig n i fi e ant it' rep a r a b 1 e hat m . Fir s t, we

have demonstrated that there is likely no violation of their constitutional

rig h t s . Sere R. end i 8 h v. Cit Y 0 f T a com i! ' 1 2 3 F. 3 d 1 2 1 6 II 1 2 2 S • 2 6, (9 th C i r .

1997) (where plaintiff fails to show likelihoo·d of success on his . . . - , .

constitutional clailXl, tha.t claim cannot establish irrepar,able barm)'. $econd,

their reliance upon the very general statement in Wright & Miller is.'

misplaced. It is only in areas like the Pirst Amendment, right of privacy" or

the Eighth Amendment, involving harms that arc inherently irreparable, that

27 If this Court treats this matter as only a TRO, rather than as a preliminary injunction, too. then even more so plaintiffs have failed to show that they will suffer any irreparable harm between now and the time the preliminary injunction would be heard altd decided. For example, the $30 million payment trom the State to the Hawaiian Horne Lands TrUST FUDd is notto be made until June 30, 2002. §..u.. Declaration of Miyabira at 'U 5.

A I tho ugh the S tat e t we sub III it I has amp 1 y d e m 0 11 S t rat edt hat the b a 1 a·D ceo f ba,rms tips overwhelminglY in favor of the State, warranting outright denial of the TRO and preliminary injUnction, were this Court to harbor doubts, ' regarding the harm to the State, certainly no TRO or prelimina'ry injunction should enter without the State being given an evidentiary hearillg to establish its harms. See Moore's Federal Practice & Procedure, Vol. 13 §65.21[3].

,:: ~ .

32

I',


'/" ~.':

.' "" .. : ...... . ~,.' ':' '"

.',

','

," ..... ..;.:.

. ~

;".


+80853i8411

Mar-11-2002 10:34am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW

, '

+8085318411' T-t3~ f043/056 F-066

".:.'~ .:,'

such a rule has been appJied. ~ Guti,e'rrez \t. Mu~icipaJ Court, 838 F.2d

1031,1045 (9th eire 1988) (citjng Mitchcll ~. Cuomo. 748 F.2d 804,806 (2d

C i r. 1 9 8 4) (8 t h A In end 'm en t ) a II d E I rod v. B JI r D 5, 4 2 7 U. S. 3 47, 3 7 3.: (I 9' 6 ) , ,

(1st Amendment». Contrary to plaintiff's argument, courts have fla:tly

rejected the contention that "a violation or constjtutional rights always

constitutes irreparable harm." Siegel v . LePore. 2 3 4 P. 3 d 11 63, 1 1.7 7 • 7 8

(11th Cir. 2000); §...£.!. also Bobe v. Casey, 868 F.2d 69,73 (3d Cir. 1989)

("Constitutional ba.rm is not necessarily synonymous with theirrep~raQ1.e , ' , . '" .:,' : , . " " \·>n iY>

harm necessary (or issuance of a preliminary injunction."). .' . ' ... :'; .', :-"<~~'''''::\;:~'~';'i; ':':~\'~; l~~:~,j ;~: . ',:'" : ',:: ft·:~ i i :':~:t:{ ~:~f: ~~ ... L:~i~~; '~~~~' ttl ;:~H'~~ r- ~

As e xp la in e d by the Eleventh Circu i't, iQ ~he context 0 f a-n·'~g'''81;·i:l t~.,,:, ·ti:.'1~·i·t:' .~~·.I;\ .~,:> ~:~ l

pro te ~ tI 00 c ha 11 en ge. the ve ry S hUB Hon we ha vc here: . ..::L;t~;\tl~t\:\ 4,~i>:),.:\~!tJ;'~\: :"c"c

No authority from the Supreme Court ... hasb~:eIi:tife~, ns;~s' fort.he ' proposition that the irreparilble,.injury·n~ededfot:.a pt.~'~iIi:li1i~t;y '. injunction can properly be presumed fro~ a substButiallylik'ely egual, protection violation .... The only.area of constitutional jurisprudence wherc We have said that an on-going violation constitutes irreparable injury is in the area of first amendment and right of privacy : jUrisprudeIlce. The rationale b~bindthese decisions was tJ:ta~ chilled free speech and invasions of privacy, because of their intangible D4uure, c:ould not be compensattd for by monetary 4amages .... The facts of this case do not fit the rationale of these decisions [because] the damage to plaintiff here is chiefly" if not completely economic.

Northeastern Florida Chapter v. City of Jacksonville. 896 F.td 1283, 128S~86

(~lth Cir. 1990)

. 1n sum, Dot only does the balance of harms not tip sharply in favor of

plaintiffs -- whicb is the standard they 'must me'et ,_. but it in faot tips

o v e r w h elm i n g 1 yin fa" 0 r 0 f d e £ end ant S • The pub Ii c in t ere st. too. W 0 U 1 d b e

severely' injured by granting the TRO/preliminary injunction.

D. Conclusion: The TRO/Preliminary Injunction Should Be Denied.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs C8nn'Ot demonstrate a likelihood of

success in attacking the OHA and DHHL programs BS Violating the Fourteenlh

Amendment, or as breaching any trust: Accordingly. because plaintiffs can

demonstrate neither a probability of success on the merits, Dor that the

33

. " . , ~ ,-'


+8085318411 T-136 P.044/056 F-066

Uar-l1-Z00Z 10:35am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411

',_.'

balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor, their motion £Qr te.~porary

restraining order/preliminary i<ijUDCtiOD must be denied.

DA TED: Hono,lulu, HawaiL March 7, 2002.'

EAR.L,I. ANZi\.I Attorney'General of Hawaii

_P~_f2:_~_~~ GIRAR.D D. LAU CHARLEEN M. AINA Deputy A ttorneys General State of Hawaii Attorneys for State Defeildantsand HHCA/DHHL Defendants '

.:i; .•

34

, ".,'

.. ' ·.3 r;t:. :: ~]~ ~~f~)\~;!\~\\ ~~\\I ~~l~:;~i· .• ,' I, •.


Mar-11-Z00Z lO:35am

+8085318411'

From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT, LAW : +8085318411 . '., . t-136·.:,"fo4.~iQ5'6~' ,F~066 '-'" ... '. ... <i);,:; (;' ,.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


EARL F. ARAXAKI, et al., ) )

Plaintiffs, ) )

vs. ) )

BENJAMI'N J. CAYETANO, in his ) official capacity as ) GOVERNOR OF THE STA'I'E OF . )' HAWAII, et al., )

) Defendants. )

-------------------------------)

CIVIL NO. 02-139 SOM/KSC

DECLARATION OF JOBIE M. 1< • M • YAMAGUCHI; . .':

. EXHIBIT "A" . . "

DECLARATION OF JOBIE M.K.M. ~AMAGUCHI

1. I am the duly appointed Deputy to the Chairman of the

Hawaiian Homes Commission ("Commission"), and make this

declaration in that capacity and as the officer of the Department

of Hawaiian Homes Lands, State o.~ Hawaii ("DHHL"), responsibie

for the operations of the department in the Chairmari''S.;'~~~~~~;'~'.· . ',." -'.~, .. ~- ~':~~~-~~.:~ ;'~i~ ~.:'~~~'~'

Raynard Soon, the Chairman of the Corrunission, is 'p::C~Serit·~y}~~u~":"'.· !',': .-.: . " .": .'.;,'::,,: ,J'.I:" :

of-state and not expected to return. until late in the· aft~.r'tioon

on Thursday, March 7, 2002, or early Friday morning, March 8,

2002.

2. The DHHL is responsible for administering the Hawaiian

Homes Commission Act of 1920, as amended ("HHCA"). Haw. Rev.

stat. § 26-17. A true and correct cOPY,of the Department's

Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1999-200,0 is attached as Exhibit

"A." It desc:ribes the activities of the DI:JHL t.o address the

needs of today's native Hawaiians, two of the most pre$sing being

.. ~ ..


+81385318411

Mar-l'-Z00Z 10:35am From-SKERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.046/056' F-066

the need for decent, safe, and sani'tary dwellings for:t1'leh\'z:fceiv:~s;:~, .',: . . . ~ . .

and their families, and the need to reduce some .of·:the~::h~~~e~t:t·, ,'~ ',~' .' , • .- -, ...' '.:'-;, :" ~ t ~ ;": : ~ , " . > ,

rates of overcrowding nationally~ The Act' s principal.,.;obj~~tive

is to rehabilitate native Hawaiians through the provision of

agricultural, pastoral and residential homestead lea~es. The

DHHL's principal mission is to manage the Hawaiian Home Lands

trust. effectively and deliver lands to native Hawaiians. DHHL

will partner with others toward developing self-suffie~~nt ~nd ' " . ' ..

'healthy communities. In adcii tion, t9 ,providinghomesteadsj, the ~ ,

DHHL also serves as a lender of last resort and guarantor for

home and agricultural loans that otherwise would not be offered

to a beneficiary, provides technical assistance and training for

home construction and maintenance, and makes more generalized

grants for post-secondary college education and community and

economic development projects to re~abilitate native Hawaiians.

3. As of January 31, 2002, 5,823 residential homestead

leases had been awarded. An additional 1,076 agricultural

leases, and 382 pastoral leases were also in place in, tll~~ 'mollth ~' . : '.;". , ' , .,;. ..:,:';-~: i ,:.,:<~,,~. ;~~b:X:.' ,:: " '

,Although some of the leases are for unimproved lots 'or ,:f:o;r;::;'lots,.>::', ~.,' ."_:. t ",~·~: .... ~:l :';':_'~"t ..

. .. - - - .~ , .' ';. .

that are in the process of beingi~proved by the l~ssees..;:,(oft~n

with loans provided or guaranteed by the DHHL), these 'residential

leases (and sometimes agricultural and pastoral leases) presently

provide housing for more than 22,500 people.

4. In addition, since the new year, over forty families

2

e

, . r,~, \

~- ~.' ..


+812185318411

Uar-11-2002 10:35am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.047/056 F-066

"'--' .. _.

have been offered residential leas-es and selected newly.available •• I',

or recently vacated residential homestead lots. Thes~;"f;a~i~i:e,s ~ . ~~.~.~~~~:.:--' ~~:~t.f,; ':'."~ :':.

have probably already given their present landlords'::.ribiik:e:~-d:ha·t'. " :. ~~.i, ~')~~;~~;:~~l[ ~!~: r:§'~')X:,"

they will soon be moV'ing, and are either in the pr(Dces;s~flQi,;g.f·";(~-:{:";:;~·:·:···

...::~i:<r':~f1~~'lll(~Ht~\ ".:~lt/~:.( securing financing to build or pur~hase the home "PP .. ·tl).e:'i.Qt;ftbey :'. . . .. :. ~ - ;.-. .. . . ,_. '.'

are about to lease, or simply waiting to sign the final'" . ~

documentation for their homestead lease. Some fifty families are

also standing-by on back-up lists should any of the ~o~ty

families fail to finally qualify for their homestead leases. If

a temporary restraining order were issued on March 12th, many of

these families would have. to find ·al~ernati.ve housing' because

they may have already given up the'homtt~ they presently.occupy in

anticipation of receiving their homestead leases. MQst, if not

all of them will also lose substantial sums of m~ney spent to

secure the loans they thought they needed and the leases they

were about to receive.

5. As of January 31, 2002, 17,020 applications for a

residential homestead lease, l3,117 ap~lications for an

agricultural homestead lease, and 2,065 applications for a

pastoral homestead lease in one or more DHHL homesteadareas:~~re _

on file. 54 new applications were received in the mp~tl:l:q;f~,;' ':'.

January, 2002. Many have been on th~s.~ waitil1g lists·~f.ci~~:im~,~~.~-···;:. • • ." ",_,.,,: f. ":' ••

than one decade and may not live to be awarded,.a le;~:se;~~i:E·_.~be:: ·

DHHL is restrained from issuing homestead leases while this

3

, 1', ~; . ~ . ~

. i

;:.


+8085318411,


.~.

litigation is pending.

6. If the DHHL were immediately precluded from issuing any

further homestead leases, DHHL staff would have to be drastically

reduced. At least 20% of the staff in the Homestead Services

Division perform the function of processinq homestead:_le~s'.Ef:; ,

applications, and at least 42% of the staff in the Land~;'

Development Division perform the function of' award±ri:g':iEe:a'5~~'/'-: , , ..' . .~,~,' ~ .. .. : ~:. .: . .

;

These two functions would no longer have to be performed.~

7. If the DHHL were immediately precluded from expending

or encumbering any further moneys from the Hawaiian Home Lands

Trust Fund ("HHLTF"), at least 29 capital improvement projects

for which $43,764,100 ha~ been budgeted to plan, design or

construct infrastructure or hous~n9 for 7 new homestead ~

developments, and repair or maintain infrast·ructure and support

facilities for 22 existing homestead areas -'-" w<>uld be halted.

Approximately 35 design and construction contr~cto'rs whose

contracts have already encumbered more than $80 million from the

HHLTF in prior, as well as the present fiscal years would not be

'paid for material and labor they have already supplied, or

ordered.

8. If all work on all HHLTF-funded projects was halted,

the need for the OHHL's Land Development Division would be

severely reduced. Even if HHLTF-funded contracts to repair and

maintain existing homesteads were allowed to continue, th~'i~";w~~i(f: " . '.~:., ~m"~:d!q<"

• 1, ,',

" ... .: .. ~ (.

•.

~'.' . .:.

\ . ;-"~ .

. ~


+812185318411

Mar-11-2002 10:36am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY ~LAW +8085318411 "

T-136 P.049/0S6 F-066

represent less than a quarter of ' the work (by dollar value)' that

is presently underway.

9. If a temporary restraining order or preliminary

injunction interrupted all on-going design and construction work,

the DHHL would lose most of the value of materials already

"

purchased and installed, and much of the value of the labor, its '" '~}' i'

, • .l

contractorS have provided. Partially improved premise,S"wou~d.

remain uninhabited for longer than oriqinally planned,anqbe ': : • '~, "~': ~ ,'" ~ '.', 1 •

vulnerable to erOSion, neglEkt, and vandalism. Lo'ana, o:bta'i:ned by • f':> ',i· ... : . ',' ~ ~-: i,'_ ' J .".

peneficiar ies invi ted to select lots but not forma.lfY "a:~~i~~;d.~, <'~~ '::':'~'1'~(!'; (~, ~:."r, ;"

leases for these lots would lapse~, . The advantages,,'O·.f,:.~~~'·'"

recently low mortgage interest rates will be lost to 'them

forever.

I, Jobie M.K.M. Yamagu~hi, do declare under pen~lty of law

that the foregoing is true and correct.

.::-- .. - .... ~ -... . ...

5


+8085318411

Mar-"-Z00Z 10:36am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.050/056 F-066

~' ...........

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


EARL F. ARAKAKI, et al., ) ,) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL NO. 02-13,9 SOM/KSC

Plaintiffs,

vs.

BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO, in his official oapacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF HAWAII, et al.,

Defendants.

------------------------------)

DECLARATION OF NEAL MIYAHIRAi EXHIBIT "B"

DECLARATION OF NEAL ~lYAHlRA

1. I am the duly appointed Direc:t-or of Finance of,the

State of Hawaii, and have served in that capacity since'May,>,' . ." . !):;" ,', i:: : ~ .. :

1999. I also served as the Deputy Dl.rector of FJ.na:nc~ ;t~~~~(,:r<:: ~.,:; , ,'! .. ~. • ..... ' .J .... :"~. , .- •

January 1995 through mid-December 1999. 'r make this declarati'on'

to outline when and how deposits of the twenty annual.deposits of

$30,000,000 into the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust Fund ("HHLTF")

required to be made by the State of Hawaii under Act 14, Haw. Sp.

Sess. Laws 696 {1995}, are and have been made, from my personal

knowledge as both the State's Director and Deputy Director of

Finance.

• 2. The Department.of Budget and Finance is responsible for

making the Sp. Sess. Act l4 deposits for the State, and

maintaining the financial records to account for the deposits and

land transfers made in lieu of cash deposits the State makes.

3. A true and correct copy of the Memorandum of

.. ,{ . " . .' ."

.. . ' .. :~ :


Mar-tl-2002 to:36am

+8085318411,

From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW "-'/

+8085318411

understanding between the Department of Budget and Finance and

the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, see Exhibit "B," generally

outlining how the deposits are to be made is attaohed. '

Essentially, sums totaling $30,000,000 each fiscal year may be

deposited any time during a 'fiscal year i.e~, between July 1-

June 30, for which it is due, without penalty or dis'count. A

prepayment discount is taken'if a deposit is made-before the

fiscal year in which it is due. Deposits made after the close of

the fiscal year for which it is due must include interest

determined in accordance with Haw. Rev. Stat. § ~78-2.

4. To date, $188,900,676.69 in cash and land value

~quivalence has been deposited in the HRLTF. prepaid discounted

deposits were made in fiscal year 1997 for fiscal year 1998,

fiscal year 1998 for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and fiscal y~ar

1999 for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. In fiscal years' 19,9:7a1,'ld . ~ .- I .' ~~ • '

1998, land was transferred in lieu ,of deposits of $30, OO~:/Q'O:,Q;"':': "", <.', "'):' :,

, ,.": ',' '~:,,:J. ~(~:. < "" i) ~'i~ ~~ ~:<~:~ cash.

5. Half of the current fiscal year's $30,000,000 deposit

was made in cash on July 2, 2001. The Department's financial

plan calls for the fiscal year 2002 deposit balance due to be

paid on June 30, 2002. The Department of Budget and' Finance has

no intention of advancing that payment date, and the Department

of Hawaiian Home Lands haa not asked that the deposit date be

advanced.

2

. ~.,

'. ~ '; . ;. I


Mar-11-2002 10:36am

+8085318411

From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136. P:052/056 F-066

wall Street Journal on April 1, 2002, will also be owed." On July

1, 2002, instead of depositing only $15,000,000, the State:would

need to deposit $15,001,952.05 to satisfy its obligation to the

DHHL under Sp. Sess. Aot 14 for fiscal year 2002.

I, Neal Miyahira, do declare under penalty Qf law that the

foregoing is true and correct.

3

:' ..

. " ..... ,. University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection

, ' ' •. I

+8085318411

Mar-tt-2002 10:31am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.053/056 F-066

'--J "-I ,

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 8ElWEEN

THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND FINANCE AND

THE DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS

This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) between the Department of Budget and Finance (hereinafter "DBFII) and the Department of HawaUanHome Lands (hereinafter "DHHL") sets forth an agreement to effectuate the requir~ment$ of Act 14,. Special Session Laws of Hawaii 1995, as amenC:led, that the State of Hawaii (State) make twenty annual deposits of $30,000,000 or their discounted value equivalent. into the Hawaiian Homes Lands Trust Fund (Trust Fund). In lieu of sums deposited, the State may. with the approval of the DHHL. substitute from time to time land or other consideration having the fair market value of such deposit, as mutually agreed by the State and the DHHL. This MOU delineates the responsibilities of the OBF and the DHHL and the procedures and process for making the deposits.

The OBF and the DHHL agree to the following:

A. Definitions:

1. Annual Payment - A payme.nt due in a fiscal year and payable anytirn~:!n-the fiscal year without discount or penalty. , ,. . ; -,~~ ;-:\ __ ~ .. -._: -::.'

. _'::: ,:, '~:~;;1~~,---:~::-;-i:~':-2. . Prepayment - A payment made' prior to the fiscal year payment js;;due~::~ ;.;' -._ •..

: . '.:. ~'. . ';

3. Late Payment - A payment made after the end of the fiscal_year paym-ent is due and accrues interest commencing on July 1 of the ensuing fiscal year.

B. The OSF shall:

1. Submit requests for annual appropriations to the Legislature.

2. Transfer Annual Payments to the DHHL via journal voucher. All interest earned on the deposits after the deposit date shalt accrue to the DHHL Trust Fund.

3. Discount Prepayments pursuant to S~ctio~ 0.1 .. of this MOU.

4. Effective from the fiscal year 2000 appropriatio-n, discount Prepaym-ents .: pursuant to Section 0.2. of this MOU. - - - -

5. Maintain financial records on the status of the deposits and any substituted land transfers. as permitted.

6. Provide status reports to the DHHL and the Legislature as required or . requested. -

~, : ,.":.-.,

-- .


Mar-11-2002 lO:37am

+8085318411

From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY A~ LAW \../

c. The DHHL shall:

+8085318411

-2-

. '

1.. Expend funds in the DHHL Trust Fund as provided by Jaw.

2. Request Prepayments in writing.

3. Provide the 08F with an expenditure plan for distribution of the Annual Payments.

4. Provide OSF with a copy of journal vOl:Jchers and appropriate documentation . if deposits are received from other agencies for the DHHLTrustFund ....

5. Notify DBF and provU:Je appropriate documentation of land transfers received from other agencies in lieu of monetary compensation due the DHHL Trust Fund.

D. The following processes and procedures shall be followed in il}"lplementing this MOU:

1.a. The DBF may, at any time, make a Prepayment without penalty. The total Prepayment ~haJi be discounted using the following formula:

( 1 ) P = Discounted Amount (1 + r)"

P = Principal Amount ,. -. ~

r = Average weekly investment rate on five year U.S. Go.vemment"Securities Treasury Constant Maturities (source: .FeqeraI.Re:setv~.' _ ,. Statistical Release, H15(519)· ..... ,'-~" ,~_~ ... ':

-,

r •

n = Number of days discounted/number of days in a year (based on 365 days a year) ,

b. Section D.1.a. shan be rescinded effective with the.release of the fiscal year' 1999 appropriation.

2." Effective from the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, the OBF may, at any time.


Mar-ll-ZOOZ lO:31am . .

+8085318411

From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P,055/056 F-Q66

. -..,/' . ' .......... { ' . .. -' :J. ,~ : ~".' _~ .

-3- ....... 'i!.;~:,<l;. t;;~ ~;.*j!~,\il ;%,\ \\

make a Prepayment withou.~:p~na~ty. The totalpr~paY~~1~n~q~~~~~1;'~~t:r~TI: ::r - '::', , discounted using the foliowit:J9fo~ula: ' , .. -,:'!"r:~~r~r1~n; ;'?:: :-:', " ',' ,

;- ~ : '", •.•. ~'.: .. ~_ ... :~·I -.-of:··: ~ . .' - 1-:'_" ''".

p , ( 1 ) = Discounted Amount (1 + r)"

P = ·Prlnclpal,Amount

r :: Average weekly investment rate on five year U.S. Government Securities Treasury Constant Maturities (source: Federal Reserve Statistical Release. H15(519) '.

n ::: Number of days discounted (counting from July 1 of the fiscal year in . which the deposit is due )/number of days in a year (based on . " 365 days a year) , .,

, . 3. Late Payments shall include Interest, as determined by section ,478-2,

Hawaii Revised Statutes. '

Any addition or chs'nge to this MOU' shall be mutually agreed upon by the OBt: and the DHHL, and shall be executed in writing with a supplemental agreement. The undersigned parties agree to abide by the terms and conditions of this MOU.

This MOU is effective as of June 1. 2000.

Department" of Budget and Finance

. Date:~{!t

ReVised 611/00 ARO/ContractslFAD/Aet 14 MOU-DHHL.&B&F Orft 2

.'


+8085318411

. ~ar-11-2002 10:37am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411 T-136 P.056/056 F-066

\

\

.~ \

"-'

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

o

I hereby certify that one copy of the foregoing was duly served on each .of ~~ :fol~owing

persons by facsimile, and/or hand delivery, onMarch 7, 2002: .; i.t.,,; :;: P,.,~,<::f_;.' ... ,"i:: .. ·t, .. ,~.!",~,:,~,~ .• ,'.:

. ..;!~<ui:i.\i J.i~i\\\ ~\~ i~nn~,~~:r~· f: ~> :: ,~ " .

. Patrick W. Hanifin, Bsq. H.William BUrge$s ; : SherryP. BIoder;~·,·":>';, . : ... AttomeyatLaw ~'~"" Davies Pacific Center

IM HANIFIN PARSONS 1001 Bishop Street Pacific Tower, Suite 2475 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

2299 .. C Round Top Drive Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

Thomas A. Helper Office of the United States Attorney PJKK, Federal Building 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 6100 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850

"

841 Bishop Street, Suite 800 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, March.7, 2002.

EARL 1. ANZAI Attorney General of Hawaii

.C>~ D.s3 ?ic< GIRARD D. LAU CHARLEEN M. AINA Deputy Attorneys General Attorneys for State Defendants and HHCNDHHL Defendants

, " '." (,:


Sherry P. Broder...+8085318411 Mar-11-2002 10:23am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411...

Documents

Transcript of Sherry P. Broder...+8085318411 Mar-11-2002 10:23am From-SHERRY P BRODER ATTORNEY AT LAW +8085318411...