No. SCAP-24-0000401, Thursday, May 15, 2025, 10:30 a.m., Nakoa III v. Governor

LEONARD K. NAKOA III, DANIEL PALAKIKO, TOM COFFMAN, LLEWELYN (BILLY) KAOHELAULI‘I, VAL TURALDE, ELIZABETH OKINAKA, TOM KEALI‘I KANAHELE, RUPERT ROWE, ELLEN EBATA, AND JEFFREY LINDER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I, HAWAI‘I HOUSING FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, State of Hawai‘i, Defendants-Appellees.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2^nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo TV 49 at olelo.org.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants LEONARD K. NAKOA III, DANIEL PALAKIKO, TOM COFFMAN, LLEWELYN (BILLY) KAOHELAULI‘I, VAL TURALDE, ELIZABETH OKINAKA, TOM KEALI‘I KANAHELE, RUPERT ROWE, ELLEN EBATA, AND JEFFREY LINDER :

     Lance D. Collins of Law Office of Lance D. Collins, Bianca Isaki of Law Office of Bianca Isaki, Linda J. Nye of Nye Law, and Ryan D. Hurley of Law Office of Ryan D. Hurley

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I, HAWAI‘I HOUSING FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT COROPORATION, State of Hawai‘i:

     Craig Y. Iha, Linda L.W. Chow, Klemen Urbanc, and Chase S.L. Suzumoto, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE: Order granting Application for transfer, filed 12/09/24.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.

Brief Description:

This case involves a challenge to the governor’s authority under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 127A to issue a series of emergency proclamations relating to affordable housing.

Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto against State Lead Housing Officer (SLHO) Nani Medeiros and the Build Beyond Barriers Working Group (offices established by the governor’s initial emergency proclamation).  Plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring that (1) defendants’ “lack the authority to hold office” because the offices are void and unlawful, and (2) the subject proclamations and certification rules are void.

After Plaintiffs filed their petition, the SLHO resigned, and the SLHO office was removed in the governor’s second proclamation.  The Build Beyond Barriers Working Group was later abolished, and its functions were transferred to the Hawai‘i Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC).

The circuit court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the quo warranto petition.  It held that Plaintiffs’ quo warranto “mechanism” was inapplicable, and that their claims were moot.  The court, however, held that it would delay final judgment and allow Plaintiffs to file an amended petition if they so chose.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint replacing defendants Nani Medeiros and the Build Beyond Barriers Working Group with Governor Josh Green and HHFDC as defendants.  Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the proclamations and certification rules were void “for exceeding the authority delegated under Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 127A, or for violating the state constitution, and declaring all actions taken under the authority of the Proclamations and its Certification Rules void.” 

After reviewing both parties’ cross-motions, the circuit court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, Plaintiffs sought transfer to this court. 

Plaintiffs argue that the circuit court erred in dismissing their quo warranto petition and amended complaint.  They claim that (1) the proclamations are void because the governor lacked a lawful basis to declare affordable housing an emergency under HRS chapter 127A, (2) the governor suspended and modified statutes in contravention of article I § 15 of the Hawai‘i Constitution, and (3) the proclamations’ suspension of laws violates the separation of powers doctrine.  Plaintiffs also argue that their quo warranto and declaratory relief claims meet mootness exceptions, and that they have concrete interests that entitle them to declaratory relief under HRS § 632-1. 

This court accepted transfer pursuant to HRS § 602-58(b).