October Term 2008 · Docket 07-1372

Does a 1993 apology resolution stop Hawaii from selling public lands?

Hawaii argues the apology resolution did not change land ownership rules. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs argues it created a federal duty to protect Native Hawaiian interests.

Official caption
Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Hawaii's attorney argued the apology resolution was a simple apology and did not repeal prior laws.

    The Office of Hawaiian Affairs attorney argued three federal laws give the state absolute title to the lands.

    Justice Ginsburg asked why the Court needs to decide the issue if the resolution has no substantive effect.

    Justice Alito asked if the legislature could impose a moratorium on land transfers to promote reconciliation.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on whether a 1993 congressional apology resolution created a federal obligation. Hawaii claims the resolution did not alter state land rights. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs claims the resolution protects Native Hawaiian interests in ceded lands.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 25, 2009.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Hawaii wants the Court to confirm the state can sell its public lands.

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs wants the Court to protect Native Hawaiian interests in those lands.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Hawaii argues the apology resolution did not create a federal obligation to stop land sales.

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs argues the resolution creates a federal duty to protect Native Hawaiian interests.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Stevens asked if the proposition settles whether opponents have an equitable interest in the lands.

Justice Souter noted the Hawaii Supreme Court did not say the resolution created a federal obligation.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case determines if a congressional apology can restrict state control over public lands. It defines the scope of federal obligations regarding Native Hawaiian land claims. It clarifies the legal effect of symbolic congressional resolutions on property rights.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON