This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Kannon K. Shanmugam, the case concerns whether the 1993 Apology Resolution creates a federal obligation that prevents the sale of Hawaiian ceded lands.
Petitioners argue that the State of Hawaii holds perfect title to the lands under the Newlands Resolution, the Organic Act, and the Admission Act.
Respondents argue that the legislature could choose not to sell the lands and could enact a moratorium to promote the welfare of Native Hawaiians.
The Court notes that a unilateral moratorium on the sale of ceded lands was imposed by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources shortly after the litigation began.
Background and question before the Court
According to Gen. Mark J. Bennett, the 1993 congressional Apology Resolution was intended as a symbolic apology and did not alter Hawaii's right to transfer its public lands or repeal prior congressional enactments that extinguish competing claims.
According to Kannon K. Shanmugam, the central legal question is whether the Apology Resolution created an affirmative federal obligation not to sell ceded Hawaiian lands.
What each side argues
Petitioners
Petitioners assert that respondents' property‑interest claim is inconsistent with Federal law.
According to Gen. Mark J. Bennett, petitioners contend that the Apology Resolution does not alter Hawaii's right to transfer its public lands.
Respondents
Respondents argue that the legislature could decide not to sell the lands and could enact a moratorium to promote the welfare of Native Hawaiians.
According to Kannon K. Shanmugam, respondents maintain that the Apology Resolution did not create an affirmative federal obligation not to sell ceded land.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens: "Does that proposition settle the question whether your opponents have equitable interest in the lands?"
Justice Ginsburg: "Why is it necessary? Why isn't it sufficient just to say that this resolution has no substantive effect, period, and then remand to the Hawaii Supreme Court?"
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia: "Is -- is it the function of the Hawaiian Supreme Court to declare moral obligations?"
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia: "You don't?"
Justice Scalia (stated consequence): "Presumably, according to the terms of the injunction, it would no longer have any force."
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Gen. Mark J. Bennett, the case addresses the legal effect of a symbolic congressional apology on property rights.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- fbe049179cacb9ead58e-r1-7b71e5e2d8beed06.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.