Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: Hawaii,United States
• Citation: Vol. 22 No. 04
• Publication year: 2018

CASE NOTES

Supreme Court

Constitutional

Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, No. SGAP-16-0000496, February 9, 2018, (McKenna, J., with Wilson J., dissenting). In the first appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court determined that the political question doctrine did not bar a judicial interpretation of the meaning of "sufficient sums" for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands' ("DHHL") administrative and operating expenses, pursuant to Article XII, Section 1 of the Hawaii Constitution. Limited judicially discoverable and manageable standards existed to interpret the term "sufficient sums," based on the 1978 Constitutional Convention delegates' estimate that DHHL's administrative and operating costs were $ 1.3 to 1.6 million at that time, and, going forward, that figure could be adjusted for inflation. Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, 127 Hawai'i 185, 277 P.3d 279 (2012) ("Nelson I"). On remand to the circuit court, however, the circuit court held a bench trial and found that DHHL's actual need for its administrative and operating expenses was over $28 million. It then concluded that the legislature was constitutionally obligated to make such an appropriation to DHHL for fiscal year 2015-16. The circuit court also enjoined the defendants from violating the Constitution or breaching their fiduciary duties to the Hawaiian Homelands trust beneficiaries. The State Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration that the circuit court granted in part and denied in part. The circuit court granted the motion in part to modify those portions of the order that (1) called for the over $28 million appropriation and (2) enjoined the defendants from violating the Constitution or breaching their fiduciary duties to Hawaiian Homelands trust beneficiaries. In its amended order, the circuit court simply declared that (1) the State of Hawaii did not provide sufficient sums to DHHL, and (2) that the defendants must fulfill their constitutional and trust responsibilities. On appeal, the State argued that (1) the circuit court erred in declining to use the 1978 baseline of $1.3 to 1.6 million, adjusted for inflation, to calculate "sufficient sums" for DHHL's administrative and operating expenses, and (2) the circuit court erred in ordering the State Defendants to fulfill their constitutional obligations under Article XII, Section 1. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the circuit court erred by engaging in a comprehensive inquiry into the amount DHHL actually needed for its administrative and operating expenses. Under Nelson I, the only judicially discoverable and manageable standard for determining "sufficient sums" for DHHL's administrative and operating budget was established by the delegates of the 1978 Constitutional Convention as $1.3 to 1.6 million, adjusted for inflation. The Hawaii Supreme Court also observed that "consideration of [how many lots, loans, and rehabilitation...