Oral Arguments Schedule
Accommodation for a Disability
If you need an accommodation for a disability when participating in a court program, service, or activity, please contact the ADA Coordinator at the Supreme Court at phone number 539-4700 as far in advance as possible to allow time to provide an accommodation. You are also welcome to send an e-mail to adarequest@courts.hawaii.gov or complete the Disability Accommodation Request Form. The Disability Accommodations Coordinator will try to provide, but cannot guarantee, the requested auxiliary aid, service, or accommodation.
COVID-19 Protocols for In-Person Oral Arguments before the Hawaii Supreme Court and Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Effective January 1, 2022, The Hawaii Supreme Court and the Intermediate Court of Appeals will be resuming in-person oral arguments effective January 1, 2022. To ensure the safety of all participants, the following guidelines will be followed:
Everyone entering Aliiolani Hale to attend oral argument must satisfy the Judiciary’s building entry requirements, which includes symptom-free conditions (e.g., no fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, or other symptoms of respiratory illness or of COVID-19), no close contact with a person who has or is suspected to have COVID-19 within 10 days of entry into the building, and compliance with the State’s Safe Travels program for anyone that has traveled outside Hawaii in 10 days of entry into the building.
Everyone entering Aliiolani Hale will undergo a contactless temperature check at the time of entry. No one will be allowed into the building with a temperature over 100.4°F.
All attorneys and accompanying staff who attend oral argument must satisfy the vaccination and testing requirements as set forth in the Chief Justice’s November 12, 2021 “Order Regarding Requirements for Attorneys Entering Judiciary Facilities.” Attorneys and accompanying staff members shall (a) verify full vaccination against COVID-19, or (b) supply proof of a negative COVID-19 test result from a test taken no more than seven days before entering the building.
Members of the public will be allowed to attend oral argument, subject to building entry and capacity restrictions.
Everyone must wear a covering over their nose and mouth at all times except while actively drinking water.
Everyone must adhere to physical distancing of six feet or more. To maintain physical distancing, seating in the courtroom has been reconfigured, limiting the number of people attending oral argument to no more than 40 individuals total.
Polycarbonate sheets have been constructed around the front and sides of counsel’s tables, around the front and sides of the bailiff and law clerk seating area, and will cover the top surface of the podium.
Air cleaners will operate throughout the courtroom.
There will be enhanced cleaning of key surfaces throughout the courtroom.
All Judiciary employees, volunteers, and contractors are required to be vaccinated or provide a weekly negative COVID19 test.
Oral Arguments
CAAP-21-0000024, Wednesday, January 26,2022, 10 a.m.FOR OUR RIGHTS, a Hawaii corporation, DIANA LOMMA, DAVID R. HAMMAN, RANDI HAMMAN,JANET EISENBACH, LEVANA LOMMA KEIKAIKA, LAWRENCE K. PAILLE, GERALYN SCHULKIND, LEONDARD SHULKIND, DANIEL HASHIMOTO, CHRISTINA COLE, FRANCESCA WOOLGER, NAEA LINDSEY, MICHAEL MAZZONE, LANETTE J. HARLEY, and LORAINE L. PATCH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. DAVID Y. IGE, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaiʻi, HOLLY T.M. SHIKADA, in her official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Hawaiʻi, and STATE OF HAWAII, Defendants-Appellees. The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at: Supreme Court Courtroom Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants: Marc J. Victor and Jody L. Broaddus Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees: Nicholas M. McLean, Ewan C. Rayner, David D. Day, and Craig Y. Iha, Deputy Attorneys General COURT: Leonard, Nakasone, and McCullen, JJ. Brief Description: Plaintiffs-Appellants For Our Rights, a Hawaiʻi corporation, Diana Lomma, David R. Hamman, Randi Hamman, Janet Eisenbach, Levana Lomma Keikaika, Lawrence K. Paille, Geralyn Schulkind, Leonard Shulkind, Daniel Hashimoto, Christina Cole, Francesca Woolger, Naʻea Lindsey, Michael Mazzone, Lanette J. Harley, and Lorraine L. Patch (Appellants) appeal from the December 23, 2020 Final Judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (Circuit Court) against them and in favor of Defendants-Appellees David Ige, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaiʻi (Governor Ige), Holly T. Shikada, in her official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Hawaiʻi, and the State of Hawaiʻi (Appellees). Appellants In their First Amended Complaint (Complaint), Appellants, who are residents of the State of Hawaiʻi (and a government watchdog organization), sought injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to a series of proclamations issued by Governor Ige, which declared a state of emergency stemming from Covid-19, suspended certain laws, and imposed various restrictions and directives. The Complaint alleged, inter alia, that Governor Ige’s ninth, tenth, and eleventh proclamations are unconstitutional and exceed the authority statutorily delegated by the Hawaiʻi Legislature to the Governor to declare an emergency and promulgate rules and regulations to facilitate the government response to such declared emergency, and that Appellants are suffering harms directly related to the continued application and enforcement of those and any preceding supplemental proclamations. The Complaint further alleged, inter alia, that Governor Ige’s ninth, tenth, and eleventh proclamations are unconstitutionally vague and deprive Appellants of due process under the constitutions of the State of Hawaiʻi and the United States. Appellants do not challenge Governor Ige’s initial March 4, 2020 Covid-19 emergency proclamation. Appellees moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, contending that: (1) because Appellants did not challenge the subsequent emergency proclamations that were then in effect, Appellants lack standing and their claims are moot; (2) Governor Ige’s emergency proclamations are fully authorized under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 127A; and (3) Appellants’ void-for-vagueness arguments failed to meet applicable legal standards. After further briefing and a hearing, the Circuit Court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss, adopting Appellees’ arguments and concluding that (1) HRS chapter 127A, as properly interpreted, did not support Appellants’ claim that the Governor is not empowered to issue supplementary emergency proclamations extending beyond a single 60-day period, and (2) Appellants’ claims in regards to the vagueness of prior emergency proclamations, no longer in effect, are moot. Appellants raise five points of error on appeal, contending that the Circuit Court erred: (1) in its interpretation of HRS chapter 127A; (2) in the Dismissal Order by adopting Appellees’ arguments without further reasoning; (3) by tacitly adopting Appellees’ arguments that Governor Ige may exercise emergency powers for an indefinite period of time; (4) by tacitly adopting Appellees’ arguments that the Complaint was moot; and (5) by tacitly adopting Appellees’ arguments that Appellants lacked standing on the grounds of mootness. Appellees argue in response that: Appellants’ interpretation of HRS chapter 127A is wrong; the Circuit Court’s decision was proper and provided sufficient reasoning; Appellants lack standing and their claims are moot; and other arguments not raised in the motion to dismiss warrant upholding the dismissal of the Complaint. |
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|