Skip to Main Nav Skip to Main Content Skip to Footer Content

Oral Arguments Before The Supreme Court

NO. 29972 – Thursday, February 4, 2010 at  9 a.m.

HAWAII GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AFSCME LOCAL 152, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,   vs.   LINDA LINGLE, as Governor of the State of Hawai`i, Defendant-Appellant, and DOES 1-10, Defendants.

Attorney(s) for Defendant-Appellant(s)

Honorable Mark J. Bennett, Attorney General, and Lisa M. Ginoza and Deirdre Marie-Iha, Deputies Attorney General, State of Hawai`i

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellee(s)
James E. T. Koshiba and Charles A. Price (Koshiba Agena & Kubota) and Herbert R. Takahashi and Rebecca L. Covert (Takahashi Vasconcellos & Covert)

NOTE: Order assigning Honorable Karen S. S. Ahn, in place of Chief Justice Moon, who is recused, filed 9/15/09.

NOTE: Order granting and accepting Application for Transfer to Supreme Court, filed 9/22/09.

COURT: PAN, Acting CJ; SRA, JED, MER, JJ. and Circuit Judge Karen S. S. Ahn in place of Chief Justice Moon, recused.

[NOTE: Unfortunately, due to a computer malfunction, an audio file of this oral argument is unavailable.]

Brief description:

In its appeal, Defendant-Appellant, Linda Lingle, as Governor of the State of Hawai`i, contends that the Circuit Court of the First Circuit erred in the following ways: (1) “the circuit court erred when it acted without jurisdiction and ruled on whether the furlough plan complied with Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 89-9(d) [(Supp. 2008)] and the unilateral change doctrine”; (2) “[t]he circuit court erred when it concluded that [Lingle’s] furlough plan was not a valid exercise of her management rights under HRS § 89-9(d) and violated the unilateral change doctrine”; (3) “[t]he circuit court erred when it incorrectly ruled, as a matter of law, that [Lingle’s] furlough plan violated the constitutional right to bargain collectively in the public sector under [a]rticle XIII § 2 of the Hawaii constitution”; and (4) “[t]he circuit court erred in applying the test for injunctive relief” because “HGEA demonstrated no irreparable harm, and the public interest did not support granting the injunction, and the circuit court misread the . . . law.”