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 20 of 46 system and the internal organization of management of that system."' 70 Haw. at 262, 768 P.2d at 1285 (brackets omitted). This court stated that "[o]bviously a judicial declaration of the Board's powers under the constitution would have political repercussions--'all constitutional interpretations have political consequences."' Id. (quoting R. Jackson, The Supreme Court in the American System 56 (1955)). However, this court explained that "a court cannot reject as 'no law suit' a bona fide controversy as to whether some action denominated 'political' exceeds constitutional authority[,]" id. at 262-63, 768 P.2d at 1285 (citing Baker, 369 U.S. at 217) (internal quotations omitted), "unless the matter at hand has been committed to another branch of government and a decision would compel the court 'to make judgments not susceptible to the usual tools of judicial methodology[.]"' Id. at 263, 768 P.2d at 1285 (quoting K. Ripple, Constitutional Litigation 96 (1984)). Thus, Waihee determined that the case, like the instant one, involved "textual interpretation, which undoubtedly constitutes judicial fare[.]" Id. Similarly, then, the instant question of constitutional interpretation is not barred by the political question doctrine. XXIX. A. In conjunction with the State's argument(6)that "Trustees' action against the State is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity[,]" the State maintains that(a)it may only be sued where it has "waived its sovereign immunity [and] only to the extent specified in [HRS c]hapters 661, 662, 673 and 674" (citing Pele Def Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578, 837 P.2d 1247 (1992); Waugh v. University of Hawaii, 63 Haw. 117, 621 P.2d 957, (1980)); (b) Trustees have not sued any State official comprising an executive department of the government; and (c)the sovereign immunity bar encompasses equitable claims including Trustees' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. As to the State's contentions (a) and (b), Trustees respond that their claim need not be brought under one of the chapters because "Hawai'i courts have recognized an express exception to the sovereign immunity doctrine for suits for prospective relief that are not tantamount to an award of damages" and "[i]n such cases, the inquiry into whether the State has consented to be sued . . . is irrelevant." (Citing Bush, 81 Hawaii at 482 n.10, 918 P.2d at 1138 n.10.). Trustees further maintain that the State's reliance on Waugh is misplaced because "the Waugh [c]ourt was concerned with the basic rule of sovereign immunity that the State cannot be sued without its consent" and not the "express exception" related above. As to the State's contention (c), Trustees reiterate that(1) "the Hawaii Supreme Court has consistently differentiated between suits for prospective relief(e.g., injunctions) and retrospective relief(e.g., damages), finding that sovereign immunity only precludes the latter." (Citing Washington v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos., 68 Haw. 192, 198, 708 P.2d 129, 133-34 (1985); Paty, 73 Haw. at 601, 837 P.2d at 1262; Bush, 81 Hawaii at 481-82, 918 P.2d at 1137-38).); (2) Helela v. State, 49 Haw. 365, 369-70, 418 P.2d 482, 485 (1966), the State's authority for applying sovereign immunity to equitable claims, "was decided 30 years before Bush and clearly is no longer valid authority for such a sweeping proposition"; and (3) "Trustees' claims are entirely prospective and will have little, if any, ancillary effect on the State treasury if granted." B. As this court has repeatedly noted, "the federal immunity principles under the eleventh amendment to the United States Constitution are 'relevant to our own principles of sovereign immunity"' and we have adopted the United States Supreme Court rule creating an exception to the sovereign immunity doctrine where a plaintiff seeks prospective relief unless that relief is "'tantamount to an award of damages for a past violation of law[.]"' Bush, 81 Hawaii at 481, 918 P.2d at 1137 (quoting Paty, 73 Haw. at 609-10, 837 P.2d at 1266). In previous cases,we have held that"the sovereign State is immune from suit for money damages,except where there has been a'clear relinquishment'of immunity and the State has consented to be sued." [Paty,73 Haw.] at 607, 837 P.2d at 1265 (citing Washington v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.,68 Haw. [at] 198,708 P.2d[at] 134 . . . .cert. denied,476 U.S. 1169, 106 S.Ct.2890, 90 L.Ed.2d 977(1986)). This exception to sovereign immunity can be traced to Ex parte Young,209 U.S. 123,28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed.714 (1908). Accordingly, we have adopted the rule in Young,which: http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2007/26178.htm 8/12/2008