Case Details

Court

No. SCAP-24-0000401, Thursday, May 15, 2025, 10:30 a.m., Nakoa III v. Governor

LEONARD K. NAKOA III, DANIEL PALAKIKO, TOM COFFMAN, LLEWELYN (BILLY) KAOHELAULI‘I, VAL TURALDE, ELIZABETH OKINAKA, TOM KEALI‘I KANAHELE, RUPERT ROWE, ELLEN EBATA, AND JEFFREY LINDER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I, HAWAI‘I HOUSING FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, State of Hawai‘i, Defendants-Appellees.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2^nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants LEONARD K. NAKOA III, DANIEL PALAKIKO, TOM COFFMAN, LLEWELYN (BILLY) KAOHELAULI‘I, VAL TURALDE, ELIZABETH OKINAKA, TOM KEALI‘I KANAHELE, RUPERT ROWE, ELLEN EBATA, AND JEFFREY LINDER :

     Lance D. Collins of Law Office of Lance D. Collins, Bianca Isaki of Law Office of Bianca Isaki, Linda J. Nye of Nye Law, and Ryan D. Hurley of Law Office of Ryan D. Hurley

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I, HAWAI‘I HOUSING FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT COROPORATION, State of Hawai‘i:

     Craig Y. Iha, Linda L.W. Chow, Klemen Urbanc, and Chase S.L. Suzumoto, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE: Order granting Application for transfer, filed 12/09/24.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.

Brief Description:

This case involves a challenge to the governor’s authority under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 127A to issue a series of emergency proclamations relating to affordable housing.

Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto against State Lead Housing Officer (SLHO) Nani Medeiros and the Build Beyond Barriers Working Group (offices established by the governor’s initial emergency proclamation).  Plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring that (1) defendants’ “lack the authority to hold office” because the offices are void and unlawful, and (2) the subject proclamations and certification rules are void.

After Plaintiffs filed their petition, the SLHO resigned, and the SLHO office was removed in the governor’s second proclamation.  The Build Beyond Barriers Working Group was later abolished, and its functions were transferred to the Hawai‘i Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC).

The circuit court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the quo warranto petition.  It held that Plaintiffs’ quo warranto “mechanism” was inapplicable, and that their claims were moot.  The court, however, held that it would delay final judgment and allow Plaintiffs to file an amended petition if they so chose.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint replacing defendants Nani Medeiros and the Build Beyond Barriers Working Group with Governor Josh Green and HHFDC as defendants.  Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the proclamations and certification rules were void “for exceeding the authority delegated under Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 127A, or for violating the state constitution, and declaring all actions taken under the authority of the Proclamations and its Certification Rules void.” 

After reviewing both parties’ cross-motions, the circuit court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, Plaintiffs sought transfer to this court. 

Plaintiffs argue that the circuit court erred in dismissing their quo warranto petition and amended complaint.  They claim that (1) the proclamations are void because the governor lacked a lawful basis to declare affordable housing an emergency under HRS chapter 127A, (2) the governor suspended and modified statutes in contravention of article I § 15 of the Hawai‘i Constitution, and (3) the proclamations’ suspension of laws violates the separation of powers doctrine.  Plaintiffs also argue that their quo warranto and declaratory relief claims meet mootness exceptions, and that they have concrete interests that entitle them to declaratory relief under HRS § 632-1. 

This court accepted transfer pursuant to HRS § 602-58(b).

SCPW-17-0000927 and 21908, Tuesday, June 10, 2025, 2 p.m., Grube v. Trader

No. 21908:  STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JEROME ROGAN, Defendant-Appellant.

SCPW-17-0000927:  NICK GRUBE, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ROM A. TRADER, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai‘i, Respondent Judge, and STATE OF HAWAI‘I, ALAN AHN, and TIFFANY MASUNAGA, Respondents.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2^nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner NICK GRUBE:

     Robert Brian Black of Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER:

     Benjamin Lowenthal, Sara K. Haley, and Taryn R. Tomasa, Deputy Public Defenders

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I:

     Kaliko‘onālani D. Fernandes, Solicitor Gerneral and Thomas J. Hughes, Deputy Solicitor General

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 02/12/24.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Matthew J. Viola, in Place of Devens, J., recused, filed 02/14/24.

NOTE: Order consolidating cases for oral argument and Disposition, filed 11/21/24.

NOTE: Order establishing briefing schedule, filed 11/26/24.

NOTE: Order granting motion to continue oral argument from 05/15/25 to 06/10/25 at 2:00 p.m., filed 04/15/25.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Viola, in place of Devens, J., recused.

Brief Description:

This court has consolidated two original proceedings: a completed criminal direct appeal and an original proceeding seeking mandamus relief in a since completed criminal case.

Defendant-Appellant Jerome Rogan and Respondent Alan Ahn had cases that resulted in published opinions.  State v. Rogan, 91 Hawaiʻi 405, 984 P.2d 1231 (1999) and Grube v. Trader, 142 Hawaiʻi 412, 420 P.3d 343 (2018).  Citing Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 831-3.2(f), both now request that the Judiciary seal their case files.

The Department of the Attorney General issued expungement orders to Rogan and Ahn.  Per HRS 831-3.2(f), those who receive expungement orders “may request in writing that the court seal or otherwise remove all judiciary files and other information pertaining to the applicable arrest or case from the judiciary’s publicly accessible electronic databases.”  Courts are required to make “good faith diligent efforts to seal or otherwise remove the applicable files and information within a reasonable time.”  HRS § 831-3.2(f).

Rogan requested that the Judiciary seal his court records and remove his case from the Hawaiʻi State Judiciary websites.  He asked the Judiciary to redact his name from all court documents and disassociate him from future judicial research.  Ahn also requested that the court seal his court records.

Grube opposed Ahn’s request.  Grube argues that sealing these court documents would violate the public’s constitutional right of access to court records.  Grube also says that HRS § 831-3.2(f) interferes with this court’s constitutional authority over its own records and procedures.  The Office of the Public Defender submitted an amicus brief.  It argues that sealing the case records does not violate article I, section 4 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution or the First Amendment and that HRS § 831-3.2(f) does not encroach on the Judiciary’s independence or its power to administer its own records.  The Department of the Attorney General also submitted an amicus brief.  It argues that HRS § 831-3.2(f) is not facially unconstitutional.

No. SCAP-23-000088, Thursday, June 19, 2025, 10:30 a.m., State v. Bernard Brown

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BERNARD BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2^nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant BERNARD BROWN:
     Randall K. Hironaka of Miyoshi & Hironaka

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Chad Kumagai, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

Attorney for Amicus Curiae ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     David Van Acker, Deputy Attorney General

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Transfer, filed 03/28/24.

NOTE: Order granting motion to continue oral argument from 04/29/25 to 06/19/25 at 10:30 a.m., filed 04/17/25.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.

Brief Description:

In 2022, Defendant-Appellant Bernard Brown (Brown) was tried in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (circuit court) for the homicide of Moreira Monsalve (Monsalve).  Monsalve had not been seen since January 2014.  Brown was convicted by a Maui jury of murder in the second degree, and he was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.

In 2023, Brown appealed his conviction to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.  The appeal was subsequently transferred to this court. 

In his appeal, Brown asserts several points of error, including but not limited to the following:

• the prosecution’s evidence “was insufficient to support conviction for second-degree murder”;
• “Brown’s first statement to police . . . was inadmissible at trial for want of the warning and waiver of constitutional rights”;
• the information obtained by the prosecution’s subpoena “from Hawaiian Telcom identifying Brown as a subscriber to whom an incriminating IP address was assigned” was inadmissible at trial for violation of Brown’s constitutional rights;
• the circuit court “should have instructed the jury on second-degree murder’s included offenses” because there was a rational basis to instruct on murder’s included offenses;
• the prosecutor’s repeated use of the phrase “we know” during closing and rebuttal arguments was prosecutorial misconduct;
• preindictment delay violated Brown’s rights to a speedy trial and “should have triggered dismissal with prejudice.”