Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:22-cv-00247-DKW-RT Document 85 Filed 12/21/23 Page 14 of 28 PagelD.3074 <br /> a municipal ordinance is preempted if. (1) "it covers the same subject matter <br /> embraced within a comprehensive state statutory scheme disclosing an express or <br /> implied intent to be exclusive and uniform throughout the state" ("field <br /> preemption") or (2) "it conflicts with state law" ("conflict preemption"). <br /> Richardson v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 868 P.2d 1193, 1209 (Haw. 1994). This <br /> test is "disjunctive" a county ordinance which conflicts with state law is invalid, <br /> regardless of whether or not it is field-preempted." Ruggles v. Yagong, 353 P.3d <br /> 953, 961 (Haw. 2015); see also Richardson, 868 P.2d at 1213 ("if an ordinance <br /> truly conflicts with Hawaii statutory law that is of statewide concern, then it is <br /> necessarily invalid because it violates article VIII, section 6 of the Hawaii <br /> Constitution and HRS §§ 50-15—the state's supremacy provisions."). In <br /> considering whether a true conflict exists, the test is whether the ordinance <br /> "prohibits what the statute permits or permits what the statute prohibits." Waikiki <br /> Resort Hotel, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 624 P.2d 1353, 1366 (Haw. 1981). <br /> "In its Opposition, the City argues that"[a]n ordinance is only subject to conflict preemption if <br /> it `truly conflicts with Hawaii statutory law that is of statewide concern. Legislative intent is the <br /> controlling factor, and true conflicts only exist when county legislation tends to defeat the intent <br /> of a state statute." Dkt. No. 72 at 13-14 (quotation marks and citations omitted). However, the <br /> City appears to conflate the standards for conflict preemption and field preemption. Legislative <br /> intent is determinative only under a field preemption analysis and, therefore, is irrelevant here. <br /> See Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Cnty. ofKauai, 842 F.3d 669, 675 (9th Cir. 2016); Pac. Int'Z Servs. <br /> Corp. v. Hurip, 873 P.2d 88, 94-95 (Haw. 1994); Dkt. No. 82 at 12 (explaining HILSTRA only <br /> argues conflict preemption). <br /> - 14 - <br />