I am posting this here, hot off the presses, for the many who have been following this issue:
Updated at 7:45 a.m., Tuesday, March 31, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court rules state has authority to sell ceded lands
Advertiser Staff
and Wire Reports
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled today that a congressional
resolution apologizing for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in
1893 did not strip the state of its authority to sell or transfer about
1.2 million acres of land.
The court's unanimous decision overturns a ruling by the Hawaii Supreme
Court that blocked the sale of land conveyed to Hawaii when it became
the 50th state.
After years of legal wrangling, the state court last year halted sales
of the "ceded lands" until Native Hawaiian claims to those lands are put
to rest. The acreage represents more than a quarter of the islands.
The ruling can be downloaded at the following site:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08slipopinion.html.
Office of Hawaiian Affairs Administrator Clyde Namuo said he is
confident that the Hawaii court, when it gets the case back, "will issue
the same kind of rulilng" barring the state from selling ceded lands
except relying not on the Apology resolution, but state laws that echoed
the language of the resolution.
U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, in a prepared statement, said: "I will continue
to monitor the case as it is taken back up by the state courts. I still
believe the best way forward is through direct negotiations between the
state and federal governments and a federally recognized Native Hawaiian
government. For these issues to be resolved, Native Hawaiians need a
seat at the table. Mainland indigenous people have this opportunity and
Native Hawaiians deserve the same chance."
The key issue before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the Apology
Resolution, along with subsequent state legislation, can bar the state
from selling ceded lands until claims by Native Hawaiians to those lands
are settled. This morning's decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito,
remands the issue back to the Hawaiii Supreme Court, which sided with
OHA in ruling that the state could not sell ceded lands until the claims
were resolved.
In a 15-page unanimous ruling, the court said: "The Apology Resolution
(of 1993) did not strip Hawaii of its sovereign authority to alienate
the lands the United States held in absolute fee and granted to the
State upon its admission to the Union."
Ceded lands are the 1.2 million acres of what were the crown and
government lands owned by the Hawaiian monarchy at the time of the 1893
overthrow.
While the ruling overturns a Hawai'ii Supreme Court decision last year
that favored OHA, the justices did not go into language that would
dismantle the agency or other Hawaiian-only programs as OHA leaders and
other Native Hawaiian leaders had feaered.
The 1959 Admission Act conveyed the 1.2 million acres to the new state
in trust to be used for five purposes - one of which is "the betterment
of the conditions of native Hawaiians."
The lawsuit was filed in 1994 by OHA and four Native Hawaiian
individuals seeking to stop the sale of ceded lands to developers for
two state-sponsored affordable housing projects begun by former Gov.
John Waihee. Creating housing opportunities for Hawai'i residents is
also among the five purposes listed by the Admission Act.
The key document cited in the lawsuit by OHA and the four individuals
was the Apology Resolution adopted by Congress and President Clinton in
1993. The resolution acknowledged and apologized for the U.S. role in
the overthrow and expressed support for "reconciliation between the
United States and the Native Hawaiian people."
The Lingle administration asked the court to affirm the executive
branch's authority over the land. Attorney General Mark Bennett said the
Hawaii Supreme Court's decision cast a legal cloud over state ownership
to the property, making the case a sovereign rights issue for the state.
The attorneys for 29 other states and the U.S. Solicitor General's
Office have weighed in on Bennett's side.
But OHA and its supporters say because Native Hawaiians have unresolved
claims to those lands, the Hawai'i court was proper in barring the
administration from selling any portions of them until those claims are
addressed in a legislative setting.
What had worried OHA and other Native Hawaiian advocates even more is
the possibility that the case could lead justices to consider whether
Hawaiians-only programs and funding should exist at all.
Supporters of such programs and funding say they are constitutional,
arguing that there is a special political relationship between the U.S.
and Native Hawaiians, but are nonetheless concerned about the high court
debating the difference between that political relationship and a
race-based policy.
In all, 1.8 million acres were ceded - 400,000 was kept by the U.S.
government while 200,000 is now part of the state Department of Hawaiian
Home Lands inventory.
You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!
Mahalo for that clarification. It is important to assess the details of the decision, rather than the headlines Anybody else with additional insights?
'Ohu
This rules shows intention of the U.S. to keep a tight grasp on Hawai'i - because to rule otherwise would give too much of an opening to the just cause for restoration of the Kingdom.
They want to continue to pretend that the Newlands resolution was legitimate - even in spite of the apology resolution.
I am sick at heart over this ruling.
So many posts today misinterpret the ruling I just been trying to get people to take the time to understand that it in of itself does not say the lands can be sold off. Of course they will continue to codify the seizure and we must fight them and organize a challenge.
Aloha Kai
See I no betta than anyone else when it comes to paying attention!
was one of extreme kaumaha-ness and it did not help that the local newspapers inaccurately interpreted it to try to sway public opinion against the property rights of Hawaiians and tried to make it seem like it's okay to advocate conversion. It's not "okay." Despite how the media is trying to spin it which may create extreme kaumaha-ness and/or a sense of despair and/or a sense of loss of hope in other oiwi, I just want to add though that at the bottom of page 15 of 15 it states:
"The judgment of the Supreme Court of Hawai'i is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."
So to me it is not the end. IMHO it is only the beginning. To me this means that more litigation will ensue and in the end the keiki o ka aina lose as usual which makes me kaumaha. It is only the beginning though not just for one of THE worse things to happen to us in our lifetime (i.e. losing some of our land thus losing some of our roots) it is also a beginning to perhaps work together against this epitome of evil.
I hope that other people in land and in title help ALL Hawaiians and their legal heirs defend and protect their title because if they do not then our mo'opuna not going have anything.
Don't worry about how I feel about this e ke hoa. I only wanted to make sure that everybody on Maoliworld who was interested would see the decision announcement. I am not an advocate of the sale of ceded lands, certainly. It seems that neither is the State, by and large. The majority of sales have been of survey remnants, bits and pieces in limbo after transactions on the edges of ceded lands.
But there are some exceptions, these are the basis of the hopohopo!
I would think that henceforth the land board would be especially sensitive to the issue of ceded land transactions, and I'd expect that OHA and oiwi would be submitting testimony making clear when a state land transaction includes ceded lands. At least this kanaka will point out that sales of ceded lands should not be undertaken lightly.
I think you serve on many boards, do alot of good, teach, share some of your knowledge, etc, are an all around cool person and epitomize how great some teachers are but I wrote that just so that some other oiwi do not feel so sad when they read the local papers because if they do before reading the actual Supreme Court opinion they may feel as though their whole day is ruined.
IMHO I just don't want them to be so sad when they read the headlines in the local papers because it may be a total shock to them to see some of those words.
Replies
'Ohu
They want to continue to pretend that the Newlands resolution was legitimate - even in spite of the apology resolution.
I am sick at heart over this ruling.
IMHO let us be real though... they are opening some doors to try to steal MORE title thus land.
Aloha ~~ Lana
So many posts today misinterpret the ruling I just been trying to get people to take the time to understand that it in of itself does not say the lands can be sold off. Of course they will continue to codify the seizure and we must fight them and organize a challenge.
Aloha Kai
See I no betta than anyone else when it comes to paying attention!
But it is a heated issue. My initial response to all of this was to uē so I can understand.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1372.pdf
was one of extreme kaumaha-ness and it did not help that the local newspapers inaccurately interpreted it to try to sway public opinion against the property rights of Hawaiians and tried to make it seem like it's okay to advocate conversion. It's not "okay." Despite how the media is trying to spin it which may create extreme kaumaha-ness and/or a sense of despair and/or a sense of loss of hope in other oiwi, I just want to add though that at the bottom of page 15 of 15 it states:
"The judgment of the Supreme Court of Hawai'i is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."
So to me it is not the end. IMHO it is only the beginning. To me this means that more litigation will ensue and in the end the keiki o ka aina lose as usual which makes me kaumaha. It is only the beginning though not just for one of THE worse things to happen to us in our lifetime (i.e. losing some of our land thus losing some of our roots) it is also a beginning to perhaps work together against this epitome of evil.
I hope that other people in land and in title help ALL Hawaiians and their legal heirs defend and protect their title because if they do not then our mo'opuna not going have anything.
Just my mana'o.
I am wondering if a court case challenging the Newlands Resolution is really where to start? Has this been tried before?
But there are some exceptions, these are the basis of the hopohopo!
I would think that henceforth the land board would be especially sensitive to the issue of ceded land transactions, and I'd expect that OHA and oiwi would be submitting testimony making clear when a state land transaction includes ceded lands. At least this kanaka will point out that sales of ceded lands should not be undertaken lightly.
me ke aloha,
'Ohu
I think you serve on many boards, do alot of good, teach, share some of your knowledge, etc, are an all around cool person and epitomize how great some teachers are but I wrote that just so that some other oiwi do not feel so sad when they read the local papers because if they do before reading the actual Supreme Court opinion they may feel as though their whole day is ruined.
IMHO I just don't want them to be so sad when they read the headlines in the local papers because it may be a total shock to them to see some of those words.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next