The United States apologised in 1993 for the "illegal overthrow" of Hawaii's native monarch a century earlier, but that congressional expression of regret did not give native Hawaiians a legal claim to state lands, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The 9-0 decision leaves it to the state of Hawaii to decide how to manage 480,000 hectares of state land. The title to this land transferred to the state in 1959 when it was admitted to the Union. But the historic and moral claims of native Hawaiians were not entirely resolved - then or now.
In 1893, US businessmen, with the aid of the armed forces, took power, replaced the monarch and sought annexation by the US government. In 1898, President William McKinley signed an order that annexed Hawaii as a US territory.
In recent decades, native Hawaiians - as well as the state's Office of Hawaiian Affairs - have asserted claims to land that was held in trust for the people of the islands. They argued the land cannot be sold until the claims of the native Hawaiians are heard and resolved.
Last year, they won before the Hawaii Supreme Court. Its justices cited the words of the Congressional Apology Resolution of 1993 and said federal lawmakers had recognised the "inherent sovereignty of the native Hawaiian people." Relying on that understanding, the state court held that Hawaii's state lands cannot be sold or transferred until the claims of native Hawaiians were resolved.
Hawaii's Attorney-General, Mark Bennett, appealed to the US Supreme Court, since the state court's decision rested on federal law. He said the latter's "perplexing decision" was not only wrong, but could cast doubt on the legal status of all the state's lands, which make up 29 per cent of Hawaii's territory.
In an opinion this week, the high court rejected the state court's decision and said the "Apology Resolution" was just that, nothing more. It voiced the nation's regret for the use of force to overthrow Hawaii's monarch but did not "create substantive rights" to the state's lands, Justice Samuel Alito jnr said. Congress did not take away from the citizens of Hawaii "the authority to resolve an issue that is a great importance to the people of the state," he added.
Both sides agreed the remaining disputes over state lands need to be resolved in Hawaii.
Mr Bennett said he was pleased with the Supreme Court's decision because it rejected the view that Congress "had changed the legal landscape" for state lands. Future decisions would be made in Hawaii. "The legislature might tighten up controls of those lands, and that is their right to decide," he said.
Justice Alito's opinion also appeared to warn Congress to stand clear. Hawaiian Democratic senator Daniel Akaka said: "Native Hawaiians need a seat at the table. Mainland indigenous people have this opportunity, and native Hawaiians deserve the same chance."
But Alito said it "would raise grave constitutional concerns" if Congress sought to "cloud Hawaii's title to its sovereign lands" after it had joined the Union.
Los Angeles Times
Email a friend