Case Details

Court

Updates:
No. SCAP-24-0000819, originally scheduled for May 28, 2026 is continued to June 18, 2026 2 p.m.
No. SCWC-25-0000006, originally scheduled for June 9, 2026, is continued to July 14, 2026, 2 p.m. 

Scroll down for case details.

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2026 – 2 P.M.

No. SCAP-24-0000819

MAUI TOMORROW FOUNDATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF MAUI, AND COUNTY OF MAUI, Defendants-Appellants.

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

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

The oral argument will also be live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorney for Defendants-Appellants MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF MAUI, AND COUNTY OF MAUI: 
     Brian A. Bilberry, Deputy Corporation Counsel

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee MAUI TOMORROW FOUNDATION:
     Lance D. Collins of Law Office of Lance D. Collins and Bianca Isaki of Law Office of Bianca Isaki

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 09/03/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Paul B.K. Wong, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, filed 09/03/25.

NOTE: Order granting Application for transfer, filed 09/09/25.

NOTE: Order setting Oral Argument date for 05/28/26 at 2:00 p.m., filed 04/02/26.

COURT: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ. and Circuit Judge Wong assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

This transfer case arises out of rules promulgated by Maui County to govern its special management area (SMA).  The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) established a SMA in Maui for the purpose of protecting coastal ecosystems and historic resources.  The CZMA requires any “development” activities in the SMA to have a permit.  Maui County passed rules that created exceptions to the activities that are considered “developments.”  This exempted certain uses in the SMA from permitting requirements.

Maui Tomorrow Foundation, an environmental advocacy group, brought a complaint in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit seeking to invalidate these rules.  Maui Tomorrow argued they exceeded Maui County’s authority under the CZMA.  The circuit court agreed, and invalidated relevant portions of the rules.  This transfer asks the Supreme Court to consider whether the exclusions placed reasonable limitations on Maui County’s oversight, or if they placed excessive discretion in the hands of private parties by excluding activities from review.

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.

No. SCWC-24-0000706

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIANO GARCES, JR., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd 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/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability. 

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant MARIANO GARCES, JR.:
     Brandon M. Segal

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Gerald K. Enriques, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Shirley M. Kawamura due to a vacancy, filed 03/09/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/23/26.         

NOTE: Order granting motion to continue oral argument from 06/02/26 to 07/07/26 at 10:00 a.m., filed 04/24/26.

COURT: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ. and Circuit Judge Kawamura assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

This appeal concerns the admissibility of statements made by Defendant Mariano Garces Jr. (“Garces”) during a custodial interrogation and the sufficiency of the Maui Police Department’s (“MPD”) Miranda waiver form.  Garces was charged in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (“circuit court”) with one count of second-degree murder.  Before trial, Garces argued that his custodial statements should be suppressed.  He asserted his Miranda waiver was invalid because of his mental condition at the time of questioning and because the MPD Miranda waiver form did not inform him of his constitutional right to stop questioning at any time.

The circuit court determined that Garces voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and admitted the statements.  The jury convicted him of second-degree murder and the ICA affirmed the conviction.  Garces raises the same arguments on certiorari. 

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2026 – 2 P.M.

No. SCWC-22-0000063

SIERRA CLUB, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DAWN N. S. CHANG, in her official capacity as Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, ALEXANDER AND BALDWIN, INC., EAST MAUI IRRIGATION COMPANY, LLC, COUNTY OF MAUI, MAHI PONO LLC AND MAHI PONO HOLDINGS, LLC., Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

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

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

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

Attorney for Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant SIERRA CLUB:
     David Kimo Frankel

Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants-Appellees BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DAWN N. S. CHANG:
     Julia H. China and Miranda C. Steed, Deputy Attorneys General

Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants-Appellees ALEXANDER AND BALDWIN, INC. and EAST MAUI IRRIGATION COMPANY, LLC:
     Calvert G. Chipchase and Trisha H.S.T. Akagi of Cades Schutte

Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants-Appellees COUNTY OF MAUI:
     Mariana Lowy-Gerstmar and Kristin K. Tarnstrom, Deputies Corporation Counsel

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Clarissa Y. Malinao due to a vacancy, filed 02/17/26.

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Lisa M. Ginoza, filed 02/26/26.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Fa‘auuga To‘oto‘o, in place of Ginoza, J., recused, filed 03/03/26.

NOTE: Order granting motion to continue oral argument from 05/26/26 to 07/07/26 at 2:00 p.m., filed 04/13/26.

COURT: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, JJ. and Circuit Judge To‘oto‘o, in place of Ginoza, J. recused, and Circuit Judge Malinao, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant Sierra Club filed an original action in Environmental Court following Respondent/Defendant-Appellee Board of Land & Natural Resources’ (BLNR) 2018 and 2019 renewals of four revocable permits authorizing Respondents/Defendants-Appellees Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. and East Maui Irrigation Company, LLC to utilize state lands and to divert millions of gallons of fresh water a day from East Maui streams for use outside that watershed during 2019 and 2020.  Relevant to this appeal, Sierra Club’s suit claimed that in renewing those revocable permits for 2019 and 2020, BLNR breached its public trust fiduciary duties (Count 2) and violated its obligations pursuant to HRS Chapter 205A, the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (Count 3).

The Environmental Court ruled in favor of defendants, and Sierra Club appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA).  As that appeal was pending, this court issued its decision in Maui Lani Neighbors, Inc. v. State (Maui Lani), 156 Hawai‘i 520, 575 P.3d 610 (2025). 

The ICA held that the Environmental Court lacked jurisdiction to hear Sierra Club’s claims pursuant to Maui Lani.  Specifically, the ICA determined that because Counts 2 and 3 of Sierra Club’s suit challenged BLNR’s decision-making on the revocable permits, BLNR had exclusive jurisdiction over those claims.  Therefore, the ICA concluded that Sierra Club was required to exhaust all proceedings in BLNR’s administrative processes, which included (following Maui Lani) an “administrative appeal under HRS § 91-14.”  The ICA vacated the Environmental Court’s Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Final Judgment and remanded for entry of an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

On certiorari, Sierra Club asks: (1) did the ICA err in dismissing Sierra Club’s appeal; (2) did the ICA err in finding that the Environmental Court lacked jurisdiction to hear claims in an original action that BLNR breached its trust duties and violated HRS Chapter 205A; and (3) did the ICA err in failing to hold that BLNR breached its trust duties and violated HRS Chapter 205A?

No. SCWC-25-0000006, originally scheduled for June 9, 2026, is continued to July 14, 2026, 2 p.m. 

TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

NO. SCWC-25-0000006

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, vs. ALVIN TRAN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:
 
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd 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/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee ALVIN TRAN:
     Thomas M. Otake of Alapa & Otake, LLLC

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant:
STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Daniel A.J. Hugo, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 03/06/26.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Kevin A.K. Souza, in place of Devens, J., recused and Circuit Judge John M. Tonaki, due to a vacancy, filed 03/30/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/06/26.

NOTE: Previous Memo of Setting is amended for the purpose of adding:
             -Order granting motion to continue oral from 06/09/26 to 07/14/26 at 2:00 PM, filed on 05/13/26.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., Circuit Judge Souza, in place of Devens, C.J., recused, and Circuit Judge Tonaki assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

Alvin Tran was charged with Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-733.6 continuous sexual assault of a minor under the age of fourteen.  The minor girl alleged that he repeatedly sexually assaulted her when she was between the ages of eight and twelve.  The assaults occurred when the girl slept over at Tran’s home with his children.

In its jury instruction, the court did not include a state of mind requirement as to the girl’s age.  It provided mens rea requirements as to the offense’s other elements.  The jury convicted Tran as charged.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the conviction.  It concluded that per State v. Buch, 83 Hawaiʻi 308, 926 P.2d 599 (1996), HRS § 707-733.6 “does not require the State to prove that Tran knew [the complaining witness] was under the age of fourteen.” 

Tran appealed.  This court accepted cert as to whether the State must prove a state of mind as to age in order to prove a violation of HRS § 707-733.6.

NO. SCWC-23-0000369

ALLISEN C. MATHERN, Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant, vs. EDWARD D. JONES & COMPANY, CORVEL CORPORATION, AND DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondents/Appellees-Appellees.

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

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

Attorney for Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant ALLISEN C. MATHERN:
     Ted H.S. Hong

Attorneys for Respondent/Appellee-Appellee EDWARD D. JONES & COMPANY:
     Judy M. Iriye of Littler Mendelson, P.C.

Attorneys for Respondent/Appellee-Appellee DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Li-Ann Yamashiro and Jung Yun Ha, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Kevin A.K. Souza due to a vacancy, filed 05/05/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/28/26.

COURT:    Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Souza assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

This case involves whether Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) delays in processing an unlawful termination claim violated the claimant’s due process rights.

Allisen Mathern worked as a branch office administrator for Edward D. Jones & Company (Edward Jones) in Pāhoa.  When impending lava flow closed the Pāhoa office in late 2014, Mathern temporarily moved to Edward Jones’ Hilo location.  There, she suffered work-related injuries.

Mathern took medical leave.  Seven months later, Edward Jones terminated her, citing exhaustion of her leave benefits and the “firm’s business needs.”

Mathern filed an unlawful termination claim against Edward Jones.  The DLIR hearing officer concluded that Mathern was not solely terminated based on her disability and was terminated for lack of work, so her termination was not unlawful.  The DLIR director adopted the hearing officer’s decision.

On appeal, Mathern alleged that her due process rights were violated by unreasonable agency delays totaling six years.  First, a three-year delay between her complaint filing and the DLIR hearing officer’s hearing on her claim.  Second, another three-year delay between the hearing officer’s decision and the DLIR director’s adoption of that decision.

The circuit court concluded there was no due process violation.  The ICA affirmed.  On cert, Mathern again alleges violation of her due process rights.

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

No. SCWC-23-0000336

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. VIHN DU CHAU, aka VIHN CHAU, aka ERIC CHAU, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

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

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

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

Attorney for Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
    Richard B. Rost, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellee VIHN DU CHAU, aka VIHN CHAU, aka ERIC CHAU:
    Henry P. Ting, Deputy Public Defenders

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Paul B. K. Wong due to a vacancy, filed 02/25/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/11/26.

NOTE: Order granting motion for postponement of oral argument from 05/21/26 to 07/16/26 at 2:00 p.m.

COURT: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ. and Circuit Judge Wong assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

Defendant Vihn Du Chau was charged with two counts of violation of an order for protection, in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 586-11.

At trial, Chau moved for judgment of acquittal.  He claimed that because he had not been personally served with the protection order, the State had failed to prove one of the HRS § 586-11 elements.  The State argued that per HRS § 586-6, a respondent is “deemed to have notice of the [protective] order” if the respondent is present at the hearing where the order was issued.  Service was thus not an element of HRS § 586-11.  The Family Court of the Second Circuit acquitted Chau. 

The State appealed.  It argued that the circuit court erred in holding that service is an element of the offense.  The State claimed that the family court’s acquittal was in effect an order sustaining a motion to dismiss, and thus, the court did not acquit Chau.

The ICA dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.  It concluded that even if the family court “may not have been fully correct” in its interpretation of HRS § 586-11, the court had factually determined that the State failed to prove an element of the charge.  Thus, the ICA determined, Chau had been acquitted, and appellate review was unavailable. 

The State appealed.  This court accepted cert and ordered supplemental briefing as to “whether service is an element of the Violation of an Order for Protection offense following the 1998 amendment to [HRS] § 586-6.”