2007-07-23_George_Kahoohanohano_et_al_v._State_of_Hawaii_et_al_-_Opinion_of_the_court_by_Justice_Acoba

Home

Kaho'ohanohano v. State Page 10 of 46 IX. In regard to Plaintiffs' argument(1), Plaintiffs note that the "State's argument focuses on only the first element of the 'injury in fact' test" and that "the State's argument reads the phrase 'threatened injury' out of Hawaii's standing analysis." Plaintiffs question that "if the framers of the Hawaii Constitution meant to protect only the amount of the benefits check, why would they have expressly protected 'accrued benefits' from both diminishment and impairment?" According to Plaintiffs, "[p]rotection only from diminishment would have given the ERS members all the protection the State here argues they have standing to assert. For the [Hawai'i] Constitution's protection against'impairment' to be given effect, impairment must be seen as what it is, an actual injury realized today." Plaintiffs further assert that "even under the most stringent construction against them, the [Hawaii] Constitution's use of the word 'impair' must contemplate the sort of'threatened injury' that Hawaii's standing doctrine also encompasses." X. The State cites Mottl for its assertion that Plaintiffs suffered no "actual or threatened injury" in the instant case. In Mottl, the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly and faculty members, some of whom were also state legislators, brought an action against the governor and the State Director of Finance challenging their decision to reduce the University of Hawaii's allotment of funds appropriated for a specific fiscal year. 95 Hawaii at 385, 23 P.3d at 720. The plaintiffs sought "declaratory and injunctive relief. . . to prevent the implementation of the 'payroll lag act."' Id. at 383, 23 P.3d at 718 (citation omitted). They alleged that "the withholding of six million dollars from the University of Hawaii's appropriation resulted in 'a loss of support for working conditions, teaching programs, research programs, discretionary support staff, replacement of consumable items, and . . . electricity and telephone charges[.]"' Id. at 394, 23 P.3d at 729 (ellipses in original). However, despite the aforementioned argument, this court held that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue the lawsuit because they were unable to show a "specific and personal injury" under the Akinaka test and only alleged an injury that was "abstract, conjectural, or merely hypothetical." The plaintiffs do not attempt to prove any specific and personal injury but,rather,press their general proposition that,in any organization,a loss of six million dollars from its budget must have some negative effect on its operations,ultimately affecting all of its employees. Their argument calls for assumptions or inferences that are not supported by the record or any case law that the plaintiffs cite. Accordingly,the in that the plaintiffs assert is "abstract,conjectural,or merely ypothetical."Akinaka, 91 Hawaii at 55, 979 P.2d at 1081. Citizens for Protection of North Kohala Coastline [v. County of Hawaii], 91 Hawaii[94] 100, 979 P.2d[1120] 1126 [(1999)],does not abrogate the "injury in fact" standing requirement in actions for declaratory relief affecting a public interest,but merely mandates less demanding standards in assessing the plaintiffs'proof of an"injury in fact."Inasmuch as the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they suffered an injury to a recognized interest,as opposed to merely airing a political or intellectual grievance, Akan [v. Olohana Corp.,65 Haw. [383,] 390,652 P.2d[1130,] 1135 ([1982)],we hold that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue the present action. Id. at 395, 23 P.3d at 730 (some emphasis in original and some added). The State notes that with respect to a threatened injury that has not yet occurred, a plaintiff must allege that he or she is "immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury" and the injury "must be both real and immediate[.]" O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). XI. Like the plaintiffs in Mottl, it appears that Plaintiffs here have failed to allege a "an actual or threatened injury" sufficient to meet the first prong of the Akinaka test. See Mottl, 95 Hawaii at 395, 23 P.3d at 730. No individual plaintiff has been able to show how he or she has suffered an actual or threatened "distinct and palpable injury[,]" Akinaka, 91 Hawaii at 55, 979 P.2d at 1081 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), to him or herself or how they have personally "suffered an injury to a recognized interest[,]" Mottl, 95 Hawaii at 395, 23 P.3d at 730 (citation omitted). Similar to the Mottl plaintiffs' argument that "a loss of six million dollars from its budget must have some negative effect on its operations, ultimately affecting all of its employees[,]" id. (emphasis in original), Plaintiffs here attempt to show that impairing the system by removing funds will ultimately effect all members of the ERS. However, as this http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2007/26178.htm 8/12/2008