%PDF-1.3
%%
%%Page: 1 1
4 0 obj
<<
/Length 5 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
/F1 13 Tf 100 Tz
88.1395 -8.4 Td
1.3 Tw
0 Tc
(FOR PUBLICATION) Tj
/F1 15 Tf 100 Tz
-78.2395 -24 Td
1.5 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
43.47 -16 Td
(FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-53.37 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( F. A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(VELYN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(DWARD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( U. B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UGARIN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANDRA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( P. B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(URGESS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATRICIA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARROLL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OBERT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M. C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HAPMAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ICHAEL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( Y. G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARCIA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OBY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAVET) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AMES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( I. K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UROIWA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RANCES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M. N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ICHOLS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ONNA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALIA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(CAFF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ACK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H. S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(CAFF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LLEN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ESHIMA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HURSTON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(WIGG) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MITH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
71.652 -13.2 Td
(Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-71.652 -18 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTHONY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANG) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(., State Council) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of Hawaiian Homestead) Tj
215.07 -4.2 Td
(No. 04-15306) Tj
-215.07 -9 Td
(Associations \(SCHHA\); S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
226.734 -9 Td
1.2 Tw
(D.C. No.) Tj
-226.734 -4.2 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNCIL) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AWAIIAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMESTEAD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
199.002 -9 Td
1.2 Tw
(CV-02-00139-SOM/) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-17.382 -1.3 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATIONS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
237.33 -9 Td
(KSC) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-172.302 -4.2 Td
(Intervenors-Appellees,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
159.312 -13.8 Td
(OPINION) Tj
-141.84 -4.2 Td
(v.) Tj
-82.5 -18 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(INDA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C. L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in her official) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(capacity as Governor of the State) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of Hawaii; H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AUNANI) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(POLIONA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Chairman, and in her official) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(capacity as trustee of the Office of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Hawaiian Affairs; R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OWENA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(KANA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(in his official capacity as trustee) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ONALD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATALUNA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in his official) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(capacity as trustee of the Office of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Hawaiian Affairs; L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(INDA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ELA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RUZ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in her official capacity as) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -65.95 m 183.8 -65.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -271.1 m 186.6 -73.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -485.4 m 186.6 -288.1 l s
.9 w 0 -492.35 m 183.3 -492.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
295 -664.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1573) Tj
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
6148
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 4 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 2 2
12 0 obj
<<
/Length 13 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(trustee of the Office of Hawaiian) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Affairs; C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LAYTON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in his) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(official capacity as trustee of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Office of Hawaiian Affairs;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLETTE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( Y. M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ACHADO) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in her) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(official capacity as trustee of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Office of Hawaiian Affairs;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HARLES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( O) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in his official) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(capacity as trustee of the Office of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Hawaiian Affairs; O) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SWALD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( K.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TENDER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in his official capacity as) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(trustee of the Office of Hawaiian) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Affairs; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( D. W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AIHEE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, IV, in) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(his official capacity as trustee of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(the Office of Hawaiian Affairs;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, 1 through 10; G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EORGINA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -1.3 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -11.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AWAMURA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in her official capacity) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(as Director of the Department of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Budget and Finance; R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(USS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AITO) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(in her official capacity as) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Comptroller and Director of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Department of Accounting and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(General Services; P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ETER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( Y) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(his official capacity as Chairman) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of the Board of Land and Natural) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Resources; S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANDRA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UNIMOTO) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(in her official capacity as Director) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of the Department of Argiculture;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IU) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in his official capacity as) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Director of the Department of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Business, Economic Development) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(and Tourism; R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ODNEY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARAGA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -7.95 m 183.8 -7.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -225.7 m 186.6 -15.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -452.6 m 186.6 -242.7 l s
.9 w 0 -459.55 m 183.3 -459.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1574) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
4646
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 12 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 3 3
15 0 obj
<<
/Length 16 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(his official capacity as Director of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(the Department of Transportation;) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.2 Td
(Q) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UENTIN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AWANANAKOA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, member) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -7.9 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -5.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(of the Hawaiian Homes) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Commission,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
65.688 -13.2 Td
(Defendants-Appellees.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
115.932 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-158.31 -26.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(On Remand from the United States Supreme Court) Tj
69.894 -26.2 Td
(Filed February 9, 2007) Tj
-91.254 -26.2 Td
(Before: Melvin) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Brunetti, Susan) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(P.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Graber, and Jay) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Bybee,) Tj
112.05 -13.2 Td
(Circuit) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Judges.) Tj
-25.296 -26.2 Td
(Opinion by Judge Bybee) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -7.95 m 183.8 -7.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -47.5 m 186.6 -15.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -96.2 m 186.6 -64.5 l s
.9 w 0 -103.15 m 183.3 -103.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1575) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
1811
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 15 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 4 4
18 0 obj
<<
/Length 19 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
120.996 -27.6 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-120.996 -26.2 Td
3.47 Tw
(H. William Burgess, Honolulu, Hawaii, for the plaintiffs-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(appellants. ) Tj
0 -26.2 Td
.46 Tw
(Sherry P. Broder, Honolulu, Hawaii; Girard D. Lau, Charleen) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.11 Tw
(M. Aina, Office of the Attorney General of Hawaii, Honolulu,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.95 Tw
(Hawaii; Jon M. Van Dyke, William S. Richardson School of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1 Tw
(Law, Honolulu, Hawaii; Aaron P. Avila, U.S. Department of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.5 Tw
(Justice, Washington, D.C.; Thomas A. Helper, Office of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
7.38 Tw
(U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, Hawaii, for the defendants-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(appellees.) Tj
0 -26.2 Td
1.18 Tw
(Walter R. Schoettle, Honolulu, Hawaii; Robert Klein, Hono-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.51 Tw
(lulu, Hawaii; Philip W. Miyoshi, McCorriston Miller Mukai) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.61 Tw
(MacKinnon LLP, Honolulu, Hawaii, for the intervenors-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(appellees.) Tj
0 -26.2 Td
1.45 Tw
(Le'a Malia Kanehe, Native Hawaiian LegalCorp., Honolulu,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Hawaii, for the amici curiae. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
123.666 -44.2 Td
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-123.666 -26.2 Td
(BYBEE, Circuit Judge: ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
.55 Tw
(In this case we are called on, yet again, to hear a challenge) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.33 Tw
(to state programs restricting benefits ) Tj
(to ) Tj
(native Hawaiians) Tj
( or) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -8.15 m 300 -8.15 l s
.5 w 0 -302.35 m 300 -302.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1579) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
19 0 obj
1986
endobj
17 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 18 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 5 5
21 0 obj
<<
/Length 22 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.03 Tw
0 Tc
(Hawaiians.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g., Carroll v. Nakatani) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342 F.3d 934 \(9th) Tj
0 -13 Td
.3 Tw
(Cir. 2003\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki v. Hawaii) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 314 F.3d 1091 \(9th Cir. 2002\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
.39 Tw
(Han v. U.S. Dep't of Justice) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 45 F.3d 333 \(9th Cir. 1995\) \(per) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.53 Tw
(curiam\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Price ) Tj
(v. Akaka) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 3 F.3d 1220 \(9th Cir. 1993\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Price) Tj
0 -13 Td
.53 Tw
(v. Hawaii) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 764 F.2d 623 \(9th Cir. 1985\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.94 Tw
(741 F.2d 1169 \(9th Cir. 1984\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Keaukaha-Panaewa Cmty.) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.28 Tw
(Ass'n v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 588 F.2d 1216 \(9th Cir.) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(1978\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also Rice v. Cayetano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 528 U.S. 495 \(2000\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.2 Tw
(Plaintiffs in this case are citizens of the State of Hawaii) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(who allege that various state programs preferentially treat per-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(sons of Hawaiian ancestry, in violation of the Fifth and Four-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.47 Tw
(teenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.47 Tw
(1983, and the terms of a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.12 Tw
(public land trust. Plaintiffs brought suit against the Depart-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.52 Tw
(ment of Hawaiian Home Lands \() Tj
(DHHL) Tj
(\), the Hawaiian) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(Homes Commission \() Tj
(HHC) Tj
(\), the Office of Hawaiian Affairs) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(\() Tj
(OHA) Tj
(\), various state officers, and the United States. Plain-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(tiffs claim standing to sue as taxpayers and as beneficiaries of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.72 Tw
(the public land trust. In a series of orders, the district court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(held that Plaintiffs lacked standing to raise certain claims and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.32 Tw
(that Plaintiffs' remaining claims raised a nonjusticiable politi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.45 Tw
(cal question, and dismissed the entire lawsuit. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(Lingle) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 305 F. Supp. 2d 1161 \(D. Haw. 2004\) \() Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(VI) Tj
(\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.93 Tw
(Arakaki v. Lingle) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 299 F. Supp. 2d 1129 \(D. Haw. 2003\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(\() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(V) Tj
(\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki v. Lingle) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 299 F. Supp. 2d 1114 \(D.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.33 Tw
(Haw. 2003\) \() Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(IV) Tj
(\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki v. Cayetano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 299 F.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.41 Tw
(Supp. 2d 1107 \(D. Haw. 2002\) \() Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(III) Tj
(\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.77 Tw
(Cayetano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 299 F. Supp. 2d 1090 \(D. Haw. 2002\) \() Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.13 Tw
(II\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki v. Cayetano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 198 F. Supp. 2d 1165 \(D. Haw.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.28 Tw
(2002\) \() Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(I) Tj
(\). The district court also issued three) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.52 Tw
(unpublished orders, dated December 16, 2003, January 26,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(2004, and May 5, 2004, which this opinion will address. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.4 Tw
(In a prior opinion, we affirmed in part and reversed in part.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(Arakaki v. Lingle) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 423 F.3d 954 \(9th Cir. 2005\). The Plaintiffs) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.62 Tw
(filed a petition for certiorari, which the Supreme Court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.73 Tw
(denied. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki v. Lingle) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.73 Tw
(Ct. 2861 \(2006\). On the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.1 Tw
(state's petition for certiorari, however, the Supreme Court) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1580) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
22 0 obj
4776
endobj
20 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 21 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 6 6
24 0 obj
<<
/Length 25 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
7.14 Tw
0 Tc
(granted the petition, vacated our prior judgment and) Tj
0 -13 Td
.9 Tw
(remanded for further consideration in light of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrys-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.73 Tw
(ler Corp. v. Cuno) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 547 U.S. ___, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.73 Tw
(Ct. 1854 \(2006\).) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
.03 Tw
(Lingle v. Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.03 Tw
(Ct. 2859 \(2006\). On reconsideration,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.12 Tw
(we again affirm in part and reverse in part, although on differ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(ent grounds. In the interest of clarity for all interested parties,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.46 Tw
(we are issuing a complete opinion in support of our judgment) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(following remand from the Supreme Court. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.2 Tw
(We hold that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue the federal gov-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.08 Tw
(ernment and that the district court therefore correctly dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(missed all claims to which the United States is a named party) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(or an indispensable party. However, we reverse the district) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(court's finding that Plaintiffs have demonstrated standing as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(state taxpayers to challenge those programs that are funded by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.9 Tw
(state tax revenue and for which the United States is not an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.95 Tw
(indispensable party. In light of the Supreme Court's decision) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, we now hold that Plaintiffs, as state tax-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(payers, lack standing to bring a suit claiming that the OHA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.07 Tw
(programs that are funded by state tax revenue violate the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.5 Tw
(Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(Although it is not clear that any Plaintiffs have standing in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.46 Tw
(any other capacity to challenge the OHA programs, we) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(remand to the district court for further proceedings. Finally,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(if any Plaintiffs are able to establish standing, their challenge) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(to the appropriation of tax revenue to the OHA does not raise) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.42 Tw
(a nonjusticiable political question. We therefore affirm in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(part, reverse in part, and remand. ) Tj
98.172 -26 Td
(I.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(BACKGROUND) Tj
-98.172 -26 Td
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Historical Context) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.11 Tw
(After the arrival of Captain Cook in 1778, the western) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
5.21 Tw
(world became increasingly interested in the commercial) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(potential of the Hawaiian Islands. The nineteenth century saw) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.74 Tw
(a steady rise in American and European involvement in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(islands' political and economic affairs. As the resistance of) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1581) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
3498
endobj
23 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 24 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 7 7
27 0 obj
<<
/Length 28 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.95 Tw
0 Tc
(the native Hawaiian government mounted, American com-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.47 Tw
(mercial interests eventually succeeded, with the complicity of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.75 Tw
(the U.S. military, in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.75 Tw
(and establishing a provisional government under the title of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(the Republic of Hawaii. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Rice) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 528 U.S. at 500-05. ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.53 Tw
(In 1898, President McKinley signed a Joint Resolution to) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.3 Tw
(annex the Hawaiian Islands as a territory of the United States.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.51 Tw
(30 Stat. 750. This resolution, commonly referred to as the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.8 Tw
(Newlands Resolution, provided that the Republic of Hawaii) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.13 Tw
(ceded all public lands to the United States and that revenues) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.16 Tw
(from the lands were to be ) Tj
(used solely for the benefit of the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.91 Tw
(inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.37 Tw
(public purposes.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. Two years later, the Hawaiian Organic) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.7 Tw
(Act established the Territory of Hawaii and put the ceded) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
0 Tw
(lands in the control of the Territory of Hawaii ) Tj
(until otherwise) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.2 Tw
(provided for by Congress.) Tj
( Act of Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(91, 31 Stat. 159. ) Tj
0 -26.7 Td
6.18 Tw
(B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
6.18 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(The Public Land Trust and the Hawaiian Homes) Tj
23 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(Commission Act ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-11 -26.6 Td
1.9 Tw
(Shortly after the establishment of the Territory, Congress) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.42 Tw
(became concerned with the condition of the native Hawaiian) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.88 Tw
(people.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Rice) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 528 U.S. at 507. Declaring its intent to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.74 Tw
([e]stablish[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.74 Tw
(] a permanent land base for the beneficial use of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.95 Tw
(native Hawaiians,) Tj
( Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
5.81 Tw
(Commission Act, 1920. Act of July 9, 1921, ch. 42,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.5 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.5 Tw
(101\(b\)\(1\), 42 Stat. 108 \() Tj
(HHCA) Tj
(\). The HHCA set aside) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.11 Tw
(200,000 acres of lands previously ceded to the United States) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.4 Tw
(for the creation of loans and leases to benefit native Hawai-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.85 Tw
(ians. These lands were to be leased exclusively, including by) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.3 Tw
(transfer, to native Hawaiians for a term of 99 years at a nomi-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.75 Tw
(nal rate of one dollar per year. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.75 Tw
(208\(1\), \(2\) & \(5\). The) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.25 Tw
(HHCA defines ) Tj
(native Hawaiian) Tj
( as ) Tj
(any descendant of not) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.45 Tw
(less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(201\(7\). ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1582) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
3766
endobj
26 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 27 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 8 8
31 0 obj
<<
/Length 32 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.53 Tw
0 Tc
(In 1959, Hawaii became the 50th State in the union. Under) Tj
-12 -13 Td
4.6 Tw
(the Hawaii Statehood Admission Act, Congress required) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.78 Tw
(Hawaii to incorporate the HHCA into its state Constitution,) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.41 Tw
(with the United States retaining authority to approve any) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.21 Tw
(changes to the eligibility requirements for the HHCA leases.) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.58 Tw
(Act of March 18, 1959, Pub. L. No. 86-3, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.58 Tw
(4, 73 Stat. 5) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.75 Tw
(\(Admission Act) Tj
(\). ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
3.7 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
3.75 Tw
(. C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
3.7 Tw
(ONST) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
3.75 Tw
(. art. XII, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.75 Tw
(1-3. In) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.73 Tw
(return, the United States granted Hawaii title to all public) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(lands within the state, save a small portion reserved for use of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.75 Tw
(the Federal Government. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.75 Tw
(5\(b\)-\(d\), 73 Stat. 5. The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(Admission Act further declared that the lands, ) Tj
(together with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(the proceeds from the sale or other disposition of any such) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(lands and the income therefrom, shall be held by [the State]) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(as a public trust for the support of the public schools, . . . the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(conditions of native Hawaiians) Tj
( and other purposes. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
( ) Tj
(5\(f\),) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(73 Stat. 6. The land granted to Hawaii included the 200,000) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(acres previously set aside under the HHCA and an additional) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(1.2 million acres. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.71 Tw
(The Hawaii Constitution expressly adopted the HHCA and) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(declared that ) Tj
(the spirit of the Hawaiian Homes Commission) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(Act looking to the continuance of the Hawaiian homes proj-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(ects for the further rehabilitation of the Hawaiian race shall be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(faithfully carried out.) Tj
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.46 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.47 Tw
(. C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.46 Tw
(ONST) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.47 Tw
(. art. XII, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.47 Tw
(2. Because the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.57 Tw
(HHCA's purposes include support of public education, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(Constitution also provides that lands granted to Hawaii under) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.6 Tw
(the Admission Act will be held in ) Tj
(public trust for native) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.63 Tw
(Hawaiians and the general public.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.63 Tw
(4; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see Arakaki v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Hawaii) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 314 F.3d 1091, 1093 \(9th Cir. 2002\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.95 Tw
(The HHCA established a Department of Hawaiian Home) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(Lands \() Tj
(DHHL) Tj
(\), to be headed by an executive board known) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(as the Hawaiian Homes Commission \() Tj
(HHC) Tj
(\). Act of July 9,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(1921, ch. 42, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.1 Tw
(202\(a\), 42 Stat. 108. By statute Hawaii created) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.58 Tw
(both the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
9 Tw
(Hawaiian Homes Commission. Together, DHHL/HHC) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.77 Tw
(administer the 200,000 acres set aside by the HHCA, and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.66 Tw
(DHHL/HHC's beneficiaries are limited to ) Tj
(native Hawai-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1583) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
32 0 obj
4222
endobj
30 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 31 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 9 9
34 0 obj
<<
/Length 35 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.57 Tw
0 Tc
(ians, as defined in the Act. The DHHL is funded in substan-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.06 Tw
(tial part by state revenue; although the record is not clear on) Tj
0 -13 Td
.9 Tw
(this point, this revenue likely derives from both tax and non-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(tax sources.) Tj
0 -26 Td
(C.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(The Office of Hawaiian Affairs ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.53 Tw
(In 1978, Hawaii amended its Constitution to establish the) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.12 Tw
(Office of Hawaiian Affairs to ) Tj
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.12 Tw
(`provide Hawaiians the right) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.41 Tw
(to determine the priorities which will effectuate the better-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(ment of their condition and welfare and promote the protec-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.61 Tw
(tion and preservation of the Hawaiian race, and . . . [to] unite) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.97 Tw
(Hawaiians as a people.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.97 Tw
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Rice) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 528 U.S. at 508 \(quoting 1) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawaii of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(1978, Committee of the Whole Rep. No. 13, p. 1018 \(1980\)\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.73 Tw
(OHA holds title to all property ) Tj
(held in trust for native) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.14 Tw
(Hawaiians and Hawaiians,) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(except) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( for the 200,000 acres) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(administered by DHHL/HHC; OHA thus controls the 1.2 mil-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.43 Tw
(lion acres ceded by the United States in the Admission Act.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.5 Tw
(The term ) Tj
(native Hawaiians) Tj
( has the same blood quantum) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(requirement as under the HHCA; by contrast, the term ) Tj
(Ha-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.08 Tw
(waiians is broader and simply refers to any persons) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(descended from inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands prior to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.47 Tw
(1778. H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
3.43 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
3.47 Tw
(. R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
3.43 Tw
(EV) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
3.47 Tw
(. S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
3.43 Tw
(TAT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
3.47 Tw
(. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.47 Tw
(10-2. OHA's statutory purposes) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(include ) Tj
([a]ssessing the policies and practices of other agen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.48 Tw
(cies impacting on native Hawaiians and Hawaiians,) Tj
( ) Tj
(con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
9.66 Tw
(ducting advocacy efforts for native Hawaiians and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(Hawaiians, ) Tj
([a]pplying for, receiving, and disbursing, grants) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.25 Tw
(and donations from all sources for native Hawaiian and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(Hawaiian programs and services,) Tj
( and ) Tj
([s]erving as a recepta-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(cle for reparations.) Tj
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EV) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TAT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(10-3\(4\)-\(6\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
6.21 Tw
(OHA administers funds received from two principal) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(sources. First, OHA receives a 20 percent share of any reve-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(nue generated by the 1.2 million acres of lands held in public) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5 Tw
(trust. H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.94 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
5 Tw
(. R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.94 Tw
(EV) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
5 Tw
(. S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.94 Tw
(TAT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
5 Tw
(. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
5 Tw
(10-13.5 \(1993\). Second, OHA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(receives revenue from the state general fund, which derives) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(from tax revenue and other, non-tax, sources. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1584) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
35 0 obj
4343
endobj
33 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 34 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 10 10
37 0 obj
<<
/Length 38 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(D.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(The Proceedings) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.67 Tw
(The Plaintiffs \(some of whom qualify as ) Tj
(Hawaiians) Tj
(\)) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.1 Tw
(allege that they are citizens of Hawaii, taxpayers of the state) Tj
0 -13 Td
0 Tw
(of Hawaii and of the United States, and beneficiaries of a pub-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.36 Tw
(lic land trust created in 1898. The Complaint alleges three) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.52 Tw
(causes of action. First, Plaintiffs allege that the various pro-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.41 Tw
(grams of the OHA and DHHL/HHC violate the Equal Protec-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.82 Tw
(tion Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the equal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(Amendment. Second, they make these same allegations under) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.4 Tw
(1983. Third, they claim that the administration of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(the OHA and the DHHL/HHC constitutes a breach of the pub-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(lic land trust. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
0 Tw
(The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims on grounds of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(standing and political question. With respect to the DHHL/) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(HHC, the court ruled that the United States was an indispens-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(able party to the lease eligibility requirements, but that Plain-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(tiffs had no standing to sue the United States. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(IV, 299) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(F. Supp. 2d at 1120-25. Because ) Tj
(any challenge to the lessee) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(requirements of the Hawaiian Home Lands lease program set) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(up by the HHCA, a state law, necessarily involves a challenge) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.53 Tw
(to the Admission Act,) Tj
( all claims against the DHHL/HHC) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(were dismissed. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1126, 1127. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.03 Tw
(The district court took a slightly different route with respect) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(to OHA. The court dismissed the breach of trust claim on the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(ground that Plaintiffs had not pleaded a breach of trust claim) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(that is cognizable under the common law of trusts. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( II,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(299 F. Supp. 2d at 1103. Finding that Plaintiffs had state tax-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.88 Tw
(payer standing to sue OHA, the court declined to dismiss) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(OHA because, unlike DHHL/HHC, ) Tj
([n]othing in the Admis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.77 Tw
(sion Act requires the creation of OHA or governs OHA's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(actions. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(IV, 299 F. Supp. 2d at 1127. The court lim-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(ited the Plaintiffs' taxpayer challenge, however, to OHA pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(grams funded from taxes, as opposed to programs funded) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(from other sources. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( II, 299 F. Supp. 2d at 1100-01;) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1585) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
38 0 obj
3669
endobj
36 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 37 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 11 11
40 0 obj
<<
/Length 41 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.15 Tw
0 Tc
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(IV, 299 F. Supp. 2d at 1122-24. In a subsequent deci-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.41 Tw
(sion, however, the district court dismissed all claims against) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.47 Tw
(OHA on the ground that they were barred by the political) Tj
0 -13 Td
.24 Tw
(question doctrine. The court observed that, although Congress) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.41 Tw
(has plenary authority to recognize Indian tribal status, it has) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.66 Tw
(given Hawaiians some, but not all, of the privileges that go) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.61 Tw
(with formal tribal status. Because resolving Plaintiffs' equal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(protection claims would require the court to determine Hawai-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.08 Tw
(ians' political status in order to determine the appropriate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(level of scrutiny, the court declined to decide Hawaiians' cur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(rent political status ) Tj
(in recognition of the continuing debate in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(Congress) Tj
( and the principle that ) Tj
(this is a political issue that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.46 Tw
(should be first decided by another branch of government.) Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(VI, 305 F. Supp. 2d at 1173. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
(Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of all their claims. ) Tj
58.644 -26 Td
(II.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(STANDARD OF REVIEW) Tj
-58.644 -26 Td
1.23 Tw
(Standing is a legal issue subject to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(de novo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( review. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bruce) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 759 F.2d 755, 758 \(9th Cir. 1985\). In ruling) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(on a F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
1.78 Tw
(ED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.8 Tw
(. R. C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
1.78 Tw
(IV) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.8 Tw
(. P. 12\(b\)\(6\) motion to dismiss for lack of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(standing, we must construe the complaint in favor of the com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(plaining party. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hong Kong Supermarket v. Kizer) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 830 F.2d) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.4 Tw
(1078, 1080-81 \(9th Cir. 1987\). As the district court noted,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(whether dismissal on political question grounds is jurisdic-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(tional or prudential in nature, and thus whether it is properly) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(classified under Rule 12\(b\)\(1\) or 12\(b\)\(6\), is unclear. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.84 Tw
(pare Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 418) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(U.S. 208, 215 \(1974\) \(presence of a political question, like) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.24 Tw
(absence of standing, deprives court of jurisdiction\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.12 Tw
(Goldwater v. Carter) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 444 U.S. 996, 1000 \(1979\) \() Tj
(the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.32 Tw
(political-question doctrine rests in part on prudential concerns) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.15 Tw
(calling for mutual respect among the three branches of Gov-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.25 Tw
(ernment\). Either way, we review the district court's dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.22 Tw
(missal ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(de novo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g., Decker v. Advantage Fund, Ltd.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.55 Tw
(362 F.3d 593, 595-96 \(9th Cir. 2004\) \(dismissal under Rule) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(12\(b\)\(6\) reviewed ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(de ) Tj
(novo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Luong v. Circuit City Stores,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1586) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
41 0 obj
4099
endobj
39 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 40 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 12 12
43 0 obj
<<
/Length 44 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.46 Tw
0 Tc
(Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 368 F.3d 1109, 1111 n.2 \(9th Cir. 2004\) \(dismissal for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12\(b\)\(1\),) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(reviewed ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(de novo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(\). ) Tj
6.456 -26 Td
(III.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(PLAINTIFFS' STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE) Tj
88.446 -13.1 Td
(DHHL/HHC LEASES) Tj
-82.902 -26 Td
4.43 Tw
(Plaintiffs claim standing to challenge the DHHL/HHC) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(leases as land trust beneficiaries, and as state taxpayers. We) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(find that neither theory confers standing to challenge the lease) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(requirements or the appropriation of state revenue in support) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(thereof. The district properly dismissed all claims against the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(DHHL/HHC and the United States. ) Tj
0 -26 Td
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Plaintiffs' Standing as Land Trust Beneficiaries ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.65 Tw
(Plaintiffs challenge the public lands trust administered by) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(DHHL/HHC because it prefers native Hawaiians in the lease) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(eligibility criteria for the 200,000 acres set aside in the HHCA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.08 Tw
(and incorporated into the Hawaii Constitution through the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(Admission Act. The Plaintiffs argue that as members of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(class of ) Tj
(native Hawaiians and general public,) Tj
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.9 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.91 Tw
(. C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.9 Tw
(ONST) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.91 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.7 Tw
(art. XII, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.7 Tw
(4, they are trust beneficiaries, and may sue the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.53 Tw
(trustee when the trustee's actions violate the law. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
4.76 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.7 Tw
(ESTATEMENT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
4.76 Tw
( \(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.7 Tw
(ECOND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
4.76 Tw
(\) ) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.7 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
4.76 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.7 Tw
(RUSTS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
4.76 Tw
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.76 Tw
(166, 214. Plaintiffs) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.45 Tw
(allege that the trusteesincluding DHHL/HHC and the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(United Stateshave enforced the provisions of the trust in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. ) Tj
11 -26 Td
(1.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The United States as Trustee ) Tj
1 -26.1 Td
3.57 Tw
(Plaintiffs argue that the trust obligations of the United) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(States arise through two acts, the Newlands Resolution and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(the Admission Act. Plaintiffs claim the trust was first estab-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.73 Tw
(lished in 1898 by the Newlands Resolution with the United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(States as trustee. Congress, according to Plaintiffs, then vio-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.26 Tw
(lated its duties as trustee by discriminating on the basis of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.57 Tw
(race when it enacted the HHCA in 1921 and again in the) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1587) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
44 0 obj
3726
endobj
42 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 43 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 13 13
46 0 obj
<<
/Length 47 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.58 Tw
0 Tc
(Admission Act when it required Hawaii to incorporate the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.1 Tw
(HHCA into its Constitution. Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.93 Tw
(that the United States became a trustee as a result of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Admission Act.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.86 Tw
(The history of the land trust does not support either of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(Plaintiffs' theories. The United States is not currently a trustee) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.45 Tw
(of the lands in question by virtue of either the Newlands Res-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.18 Tw
(olution or the Admission Act. The Newlands Resolution) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(recited that the Government of the Republic of Hawaii ceded) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(the absolute fee and ownership of all public Government, or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(Crown lands.) Tj
( Newlands Resolution, 30 Stat. 750 \(1898\). It) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(further provided that existing U.S. laws regarding public lands) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(would not apply to Hawaiian lands, but that Congress ) Tj
(shall) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(enact special laws for their management and disposition: ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.23 Tw
(vided) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, That all revenue from or proceeds of the same . . . shall) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(be used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawai-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.75 Tw
(ian Islands for educational and other public purposes.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
4.32 Tw
(Although this passage did not specifically use the word) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.62 Tw
(trust, the Attorney General of the United States subse-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(quently interpreted it ) Tj
(to subject the public lands in Hawaii to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(a special trust.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hawaii Public Lands) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 22 Op. Att'y Gen.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(574, 576 \(1899\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.67 Tw
(Assuming, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(arguendo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, that the Attorney General was right) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.78 Tw
(to construe the Newlands Resolution as establishing a trust,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(and assuming further that the United States became a trustee,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.81 Tw
(the United States' status as trustee was expressly subject to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(future revision. The Resolution specifically provides that ) Tj
(the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(United States shall enact special laws for [the] management) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.9 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.32 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The district court concluded that Plaintiffs had waived the Newlands) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
.52 Tw
(Resolution theory, and addressed only the Admission Act theory. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.1 Td
.02 Tw
(II, 299 F. Supp. 2d at 1101. Plaintiffs deny the waiver. However, this court) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.29 Tw
(can affirm the district court's dismissal on any ground supported by the) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.23 Tw
(record, even if the district court did not rely on the ground. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g., Livid) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.55 Tw
(Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( 416 F.3d 940, 950 \(9th Cir.) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.03 Tw
(2005\). In the interest of being thorough, we therefore address both theo-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(ries. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -399.55 m 300 -399.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1588) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
47 0 obj
4050
endobj
45 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 48 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 46 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 14 14
51 0 obj
<<
/Length 52 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.46 Tw
0 Tc
(and disposition) Tj
( of public lands. The Attorney General con-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.5 Tw
(strued this provision as ) Tj
(vest[ing] in Congress the exclusive) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.36 Tw
(right, by special enactment, to provide for the disposition of) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.07 Tw
(public lands in Hawaii.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The Newlands Resolution thus) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.47 Tw
(contemplated that Congress would enact subsequent rules to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(govern the ceded lands. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
3.36 Tw
([1]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Congress enacted such rules in the HHCA and the) Tj
-12 -13 Td
5.7 Tw
(Admission Act. Any trust obligation the United States) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.33 Tw
(assumed in the Newlands Resolution for the lands at issue) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.58 Tw
(here was extinguished by Congress when it created the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(DHHL/HHC in the HHCA and granted it control of defined) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(available lands.) Tj
( Act of July 9, 1921, ch. 42, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.8 Tw
(202, 204,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.15 Tw
(and 207; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.15 Tw
(204\(a\) \() Tj
(Upon the passage of this Act, all) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(available lands shall immediately assume the status of Hawai-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(ian home lands and be under the control of the department to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(be used and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(this Act.) Tj
(\). Any lingering doubt over the United States' role) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(as trustee was eliminated entirely in the Admission Act when) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(the United States ) Tj
(grant[ed] to the State of Hawaii, effective) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(upon its admission in the Union, the United States' title to all) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(the public lands and other public property, and to all lands) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.74 Tw
(defined as `available lands' by section 203 of the Hawaiian) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(Homes Commission Act . . . title which is held by the United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.86 Tw
(States immediately prior to its admission into the Union.) Tj
() Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Pub. L. No. 86-3, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(5\(b\), 73 Stat. 4. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.16 Tw
([2]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Our discussion here also resolves Plaintiffs' claim that) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(the Admission Act established the United States' obligations) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(as a trustee. The Admission Act unambiguously requires that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(land be held in public trust, but by the State of Hawaii, not the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(United States. Nothing in the Admission Act suggests that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(United States would serve as a co-trustee with the State. Nor) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(does the fact that the United States must consent to changes) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(in the qualifications of lessees under the trust make the United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(States a co-trustee. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Pub. L. No. 86-3, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.3 Tw
(4, 73 Stat. 4. Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(gress might have made the United States a co-trustee; instead) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.81 Tw
(it reserved to the United States the right to bring suit for) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1589) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
52 0 obj
3864
endobj
50 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 51 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 15 15
54 0 obj
<<
/Length 55 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.33 Tw
0 Tc
(breach of trust, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.33 Tw
(5\(f\), a provision at odds with the sugges-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.6 Tw
(tion that the United States remains a trustee. We conclude, as) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.08 Tw
(we noted in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Keaukaha-Penaewa Cmty. Ass'n v. Hawaiian) Tj
0 -13 Td
0 Tw
(Homes Comm'n) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 588 F.2d 1216, 1224 n.7 \(9th Cir. 1978\), that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
([t]he United States has only a somewhat tangential supervi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(sory role of the Admission Act, rather than the role of trust-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(ee. ) Tj
11 -26 Td
(2.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The United States as an Indispensable Party ) Tj
1 -26 Td
2.16 Tw
(Although the United States cannot be sued on Plaintiffs') Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(trust beneficiary theory, Plaintiffs nevertheless argue that they) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.9 Tw
(may at least sue the state defendants on the same theory.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.87 Tw
(Plaintiffs point to several cases in which we have held that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(native Hawaiians, as trust beneficiaries, could bring suit under) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.51 Tw
(1983 against the State to enforce the terms of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.93 Tw
(trust. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(E.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Price v. Akaka) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 928 F.2d 824 \(9th Cir. 1990\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
8.72 Tw
(Keaukaha-Panaewa Cmty. Ass'n ) Tj
(v. Hawaiian Homes) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(Comm'n) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 739 F.2d 1467 \(9th Cir. 1984\); s) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(ee also Price v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.44 Tw
(Akaka) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 3 F.3d 1220, 1223-25 \(9th Cir. 1993\). Those cases) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(involved claims that the state was improperly administering) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(the trust and sought to enforce the trust's terms. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.96 Tw
(We believe that this argument is disposed of easily. Those) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.48 Tw
(cases differ from the present challenge in a fundamental way:) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(although those previous ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.62 Tw
(1983 cases have involved suits to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(enforce the express terms of the trust, this suit, by contrast,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(asks the court to prohibit the enforcement of a trust provision.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(That is, Plaintiffs now raise a ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.23 Tw
(1983 claim that is unique in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(that it does not seek to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(enforce) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the substantive terms of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(trust, but instead challenges at least one of those terms as con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(stitutionally ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(unenforceable) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
3.07 Tw
([3]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We have recently held that in any challenge to the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(enforceability of the lease eligibility requirements, the United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(States is an indispensable party. In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll v. Nakatani) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(F.3d 934 \(9th Cir. 2003\), ) Tj
(a non-native Hawaiian citizen chal-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(lenged the homestead lease program administered by DHHL/) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1590) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
55 0 obj
3865
endobj
53 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 54 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 16 16
57 0 obj
<<
/Length 58 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.33 Tw
0 Tc
(HHC. The plaintiff sued the relevant state actors, but failed to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.27 Tw
(sue the United States. We held that Section 4 of the Admis-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.85 Tw
(sions Act ) Tj
(expressly reserves to the United States that no) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.07 Tw
(changes in the qualifications of the lessees may be made with-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.26 Tw
(out its consent.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342 F.3d at 944. We reasoned that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.38 Tw
(because the qualifications for the DHHL/HHC leases cannot) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(be modified without the United States' approval, the United) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.33 Tw
(States is an indispensable party to any lawsuit challenging the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.87 Tw
(DHHL/HHC leases, and the Plaintiff's failure to sue the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.6 Tw
(United States meant that his injury was not redressable. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(944. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.5 Td
1.75 Tw
([4]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Here, unlike in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, Plaintiffs properly named the) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.25 Tw
(United States as a party. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s logic nonetheless applies.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.77 Tw
(Plaintiffs lack standing to sue the United States, but the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.27 Tw
(United States is an indispensable party to any challenge to the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
5.86 Tw
(lease eligibility requirements. Plaintiffs therefore cannot) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.67 Tw
(maintain their challenge to the lease eligibility requirements) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.75 Tw
(against the State. Accordingly, the district court properly dis-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.91 Tw
(missed the Plaintiffs' trust beneficiary claim against the state) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(defendants. ) Tj
0 -26.4 Td
(B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Plaintiffs' Standing As State Taxpayers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
2.21 Tw
(Plaintiffs also challenge the DHHL/HHC lease eligibility) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.88 Tw
(programs in their capacity as state taxpayers. The question is) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1 Tw
(whether our decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bars Plaintiffs' equal protec-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.03 Tw
(tion challenge in their capacity as taxpayers, just as it barred) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.25 Tw
(Plaintiffs' suit in their capacity as trust beneficiaries. In par-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.28 Tw
(ticular, we must decide whether Plaintiffs have standing to) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.26 Tw
(challenge Hawaii's spending of tax revenues on the lease pro-) Tj
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(gram.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( This is a more complicated question. ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.63 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Plaintiffs do not limit their challenge to the expenditure of state tax) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.67 Tw
(revenues; instead, they challenge ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(all) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( state spending on the lease program,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.81 Tw
(whether funded by taxes, bonds, the proceeds of a settlement, or other) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.07 Tw
(non-tax revenues. The district court held that, if Plaintiffs could bring their) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.08 Tw
(equal protection claims against DHHL/HHC based on their taxpayer status) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -432.85 m 300 -432.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1591) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
58 0 obj
4022
endobj
56 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 48 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 57 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 17 17
60 0 obj
<<
/Length 61 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
1.12 Tw
0 Tc
(The standing doctrine, like other Article III doctrines con-) Tj
-12 -13.6 Td
.87 Tw
(cerning justiciability, ensures that a plaintiff's claims arise in) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.48 Tw
(a ) Tj
(concrete factual context) Tj
( appropriate to judicial resolution.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.6 Td
1.45 Tw
(Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United For Separation) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.1 Tw
(of Church & State, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 454 U.S. 464, 472 \(1982\). Standing) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.13 Tw
(ensures that, no matter the academic merits of the claim, the) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.26 Tw
(suit has been brought by a proper party. The ) Tj
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.26 Tw
(`irreducible) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.47 Tw
(constitutional minimum of standing') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.47 Tw
( requires that a plaintiff) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.9 Tw
(allege that he has suffered concrete injury, that there is a) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2 Tw
(causal connection between his injury and the conduct com-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.81 Tw
(plained of, and that the injury will likely be redressed by a) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.55 Tw
(favorable decision. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Hays) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 515 U.S. 737, 742-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.44 Tw
(43 \(1995\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 504 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(555, 560-61 \(1992\)\). ) Tj
12 -26.9 Td
1 Tw
(Plaintiffs have alleged that Hawaii has supported the lease) Tj
-12 -13.6 Td
1.63 Tw
(program through tax revenues, a point that Hawaii does not) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.7 Tw
(dispute. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(II, 299 F. Supp. 2d at 1098. Hawaii's taxing) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.47 Tw
(and spending in support of the lease program is not mandated) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.37 Tw
(by the Admission Act or any other federal law. The Admis-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.92 Tw
(sion Act requires Hawaii to adopt the HHCA and forbids) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.41 Tw
(Hawaii to change the lease eligibility requirement without the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.58 Tw
(consent of the United States; but neither the Admission Act) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.75 Tw
(nor the HHCA, as incorporated by the Hawaii Constitution,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.3 Tw
(mandates the expenditure of state funds, much less the expen-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.69 Tw
(diture of state tax revenues. Pub. L. No. 86-3, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.69 Tw
(4, 73 Stat. 4.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.63 Tw
(Section 5\(f\) of the Admission Act does provide that proceeds) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.66 Tw
(from the sale or other disposition of the lands shall be paid) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.5 Td
.71 Tw
(at all, they could challenge only those avenues of state funding that actu-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.83 Tw
(ally derived from taxes, rather than from other sources. Because we con-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.33 Tw
(clude, like the district court, that ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( precludes Plaintiffs' challenge to) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.49 Tw
(Hawaii's spending on the lease program regardless of the source of the) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.66 Tw
(state's funds, we need not decide here whether the district court correctly) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.2 Tw
(limited the scope of Plaintiffs' state taxpayer challenges. We limit our dis-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.28 Tw
(cussion to Plaintiffs' challenge to Hawaii's spending of tax revenues on) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.43 Tw
(the lease program and address the general question regarding the scope of) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1 Tw
(standing as a state taxpayer in Part IV.A.3, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(infra) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -386.25 m 300 -386.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1592) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
61 0 obj
4114
endobj
59 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 60 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 18 18
63 0 obj
<<
/Length 64 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.25 Tw
0 Tc
(into the trust for the identified purposes, but nothing suggests,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.84 Tw
(much less requires, that the State of Hawaii expend tax reve-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.18 Tw
(nues to support the lease program. Any tax revenues Hawaii) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.71 Tw
(has appropriated to DHHL/HHC, then, resulted from deci-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(sions by the Hawaii Legislature. ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.95 Tw
(Plaintiffs' taxpayer-based claims might be construed as a) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
2.42 Tw
(limited challenge to the lease program: Plaintiffs challenge) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.5 Tw
(the lease program to the extent that Hawaii hasindependent) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.61 Tw
(of any federal obligation, including the Admission Act) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.11 Tw
(engaged in taxing and spending in support of the DHHL/HHC) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.66 Tw
(program. Under this theory, unlike their trust beneficiary the-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.61 Tw
(ory, Plaintiffs would not challenge the lease eligibility) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.14 Tw
(requirements directly, nor would they implicate any substan-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.23 Tw
(tial rights belonging to the United States. Thus, Plaintiffs) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.5 Tw
(might argue, even if they cannot seek to enjoin the native) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.37 Tw
(Hawaiians-only rule directly, they can seek to enjoin further) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.22 Tw
(state funding of a provision that allegedly violates the Equal) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.6 Tw
(Protection Clause. Plaintiffs' remedy, presumably, would be) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.25 Tw
(an injunction against spending state tax revenues, but not an) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(order directing changes in the lease criteria. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.6 Td
1.75 Tw
([5]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Plaintiffs' theory, though game, ultimately fails under) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13.4 Td
.28 Tw
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. The only ground Plaintiffs have alleged for enjoining) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.8 Tw
(the state from spending is that the spending is for purposes) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause. Any remedy that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.83 Tw
(Plaintiffs seekfor example, an injunction against expendi-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.71 Tw
(ture of tax revenues for the lease programdemands that the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.75 Tw
(district court decide whether the lease eligibility criteria are) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.78 Tw
(constitutional. The lease criteria are found in the HHCA) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.55 Tw
(which is adopted by Article XII of the Hawaii Constitution.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.67 Tw
(We held in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, however, that ) Tj
(Article XII of the Hawai-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(ian Constitution cannot be declared unconstitutional without) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.14 Tw
(holding [Section 4] of the Admissions Act unconstitutional.) Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
1.03 Tw
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342 F.3d at 944. Our decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( effectively) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.93 Tw
(holds that any challenge to Article XII is a challenge to Sec-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.9 Tw
(tion 4 of the Admission Act, and no challenge to the Admis-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1593) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
64 0 obj
3644
endobj
62 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 63 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 19 19
66 0 obj
<<
/Length 67 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.92 Tw
0 Tc
(sion Act may proceed without the presence of the United) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(States as a defendant. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -27.4 Td
.23 Tw
([6]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( As state taxpayers, Plaintiffs have no basis for suing the) Tj
-12 -13.9 Td
2.53 Tw
(United States. They claim no status that would distinguish) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.2 Tw
(them from any number of other persons who also do not qual-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.1 Tw
(ify for the Hawaiian Home Lands leases. The Court has ) Tj
(re-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.81 Tw
(peatedly refused to recognize a generalized grievance against) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.57 Tw
(allegedly illegal government conduct as sufficient for stand-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1 Tw
(ing. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hays) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 515 U.S. 743. Moreover, ) Tj
([t]he rule against gen-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.88 Tw
(eralized grievances applies with as much force in the equal) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.4 Tw
(protection context as in any other.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.; see Allen v. Wright) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.53 Tw
(468 U.S. 737, 751 \(1984\). Federal taxpayer standing which,) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.73 Tw
(notably, Plaintiffs do not assert, is simply one instance of the) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.25 Tw
(assertion of a generalized grievance. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Frothingham v. Mel-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.4 Tw
(lon) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 262 U.S. 447, 487-88 \(1923\) \() Tj
(The administration of any) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.28 Tw
(statute, likely to produce additional taxation to be imposed) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.7 Tw
(upon a vast number of taxpayers, the extent of whose several) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.87 Tw
(liability is indefinite and constantly changing, is essentially a) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(matter of public and not of individual concern.) Tj
(\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -27.4 Td
.47 Tw
([7]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We hold that Plaintiffs cannot avoid the implications of) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13.8 Td
1.51 Tw
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( by limiting their claims to state spending in support) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.14 Tw
(of the lease program and then alleging their state taxpayer sta-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.3 Tw
(tus. Even if Plaintiffs were to have standing as state taxpayers) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.47 Tw
(a possibility we address in Part IV and hold is foreclosed) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.55 Tw
(by the Supreme Court's decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(that) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.41 Tw
(status cannot supply standing against the United States. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See,) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.37 Tw
(e.g., ) Tj
(Frothingham) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 262 U.S. at 486-87 \(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Crampton v.) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.44 Tw
(Zabriskie) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 101 U.S. 601, 609 \(1880\)\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( W. Mining Council v.) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.55 Tw
(Watt) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 643 F.2d 618, 631 \(9th Cir. 1981\)) Tj
(. Accordingly, we) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.28 Tw
(conclude that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue the United States,) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.44 Tw
(and that the United States remains an indispensable party to) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.28 Tw
(any challenge to the DHHL/HHC lease eligibility criteria. We) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.66 Tw
(affirm the district court's dismissal of all claims against the) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(United States and DHHL/HHC. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1594) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
67 0 obj
3825
endobj
65 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 66 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 20 20
70 0 obj
<<
/Length 71 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
19.884 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(IV.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(PLAINTIFFS' STANDING TO CHALLENGE) Tj
76.68 -13 Td
(OHA'S PROGRAMS) Tj
-84.564 -26 Td
4.08 Tw
(As with DHHL/HHC, Plaintiffs allege two theories of) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.1 Tw
(standing to challenge OHA: they challenge the appropriation) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.57 Tw
(of state tax revenue based on their status as state taxpayers,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.55 Tw
(and they challenge the appropriation of trust revenue to OHA) Tj
0 -13 Td
.74 Tw
(based on their alleged status as trust beneficiaries. Relying in) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.47 Tw
(large measure on our decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 741) Tj
0 -13 Td
.03 Tw
(F.2d 1169 \(9th Cir. 1984\), the district court held that Plaintiffs) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(had standing to sue OHA as state taxpayers. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki II) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 299) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(F. Supp. 2d at 1094-98. The court further held, however, that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge state funding of OHA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(that did not originate in taxes, specifically, any revenue that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(OHA received from lease rentals, settlements, or state bonds.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.97 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1100-01. With respect to the trust revenue claim, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.03 Tw
(district court dismissed the breach of trust claim on the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(ground that Plaintiffs had not pleaded a trust claim that was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(cognizable under the common law of trusts. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1103. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.88 Tw
(OHA contends that the district court must be reversed in) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.48 Tw
(light of) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.48 Tw
(Ct. 1854) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.12 Tw
(\(2006\), and because the United States is an indispensable) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.7 Tw
(party under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. Plaintiffs allege that the district court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.94 Tw
(erred by restricting the scope of their challenge to OHA pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.04 Tw
(grams directly funded by taxes. We address each of these con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
8.71 Tw
(tentions in turn. We conclude that) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(effectively overrules ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, and ) Tj
(Plaintiffs, accordingly, do) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(not have standing as state taxpayers to challenge the appropri-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(ation of state revenue to OHA. We need not reach the issue) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(of whether or not the United States is an indispensable party) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, nor need we discuss whether or not the district) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.38 Tw
(court properly limited the scope of Plaintiffs' challenge.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.1 Tw
(Finally, we conclude, as we did in the prior section, that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.08 Tw
(Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their trust beneficiary theory of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.38 Tw
(standing because the United States remains an indispensable) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.23 Tw
(party to a suit challenging the trust, and Plaintiffs have no) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(standing to sue the United States. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1595) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
71 0 obj
3922
endobj
69 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 70 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 21 21
73 0 obj
<<
/Length 74 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Plaintiffs' State Taxpayer Standing ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
11 -26 Td
(1.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The Vitality of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
1 -26 Td
.74 Tw
([8]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, residents of Hawaii and a taxpayers' group) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.7 Tw
(brought suit under 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.7 Tw
(1983 for damages and injunc-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.55 Tw
(tive relief to challenge programs administered by OHA to the) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.24 Tw
(extent those programs favored ) Tj
(Hawaiians.) Tj
( 741 F.2d at) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.5 Tw
(1172. We held that at least some of the individual plaintiffs) Tj
0 -13 Td
.07 Tw
(had standing to seek an injunction prohibiting the ) Tj
(appropriat-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(ing, transferring, and spending) Tj
( of taxpayers' money from the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.46 Tw
(state treasury's general fund. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1180. The plaintiffs) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(alleged that they had ) Tj
(been burdened with the necessity to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(provide more taxes to support [a class composed of Hawai-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.7 Tw
(ians] and that this was sufficient to sustain a ) Tj
(good-faith) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(pocketbook action set forth in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Doremus) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( [) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(v. Board of Educa-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.5 Tw
(tion) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342 U.S. 429, 434 \(1952\)].) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(internal quotations) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.66 Tw
(omitted\). In our original opinion, we held that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(remained the law of the circuit, and that Justice Kennedy's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(opinion in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(ASARCO v. Kadish) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 490 U.S. 605 \(1989\), while) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(persuasive, did not receive the requisite five votes to overrule) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 423 F.3d at 967-69. Since we issued) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(our original opinion, the Supreme Court decided ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Daimler-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.28 Tw
(Chrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.28 Tw
(Ct. 1854, which now effectively overrules) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.54 Tw
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1864 & n.4 \(noting that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoo-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(huli ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(were inconsistent with the five circuits to have decided) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(this issue and agreeing with those circuits\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.66 Tw
(In order to satisfy the case or controversy requirement of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(Article III, a plaintiff must demonstrate an injury in fact, a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(causal relationship between the injury and the conduct com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(plained of, and redressability. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lujan) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 504 U.S. at 560. In tax-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.14 Tw
(payer suits, these requirements are particularly difficult to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(satisfy. The Court has hesitated to recognize federal taxpayer) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.04 Tw
(standing because an injunction prohibiting spending on any) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(given program may only remotely affect the parties' tax bill) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.43 Tw
(and redress the alleged injury. As the Court wrote in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Froth-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(ingham v. Mellon) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, a federal taxpayer's ) Tj
(interest in the moneys) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1596) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
74 0 obj
4378
endobj
72 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 73 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 22 22
76 0 obj
<<
/Length 77 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.86 Tw
0 Tc
(of the Treasury . . . is shared with millions of others . . . and) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.5 Tw
(the effect upon future taxation, of any payment out of the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.63 Tw
(funds, is so remote, fluctuating and uncertain, that no basis is) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(afforded for [judicial review].) Tj
( 262 U.S. at 487. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.8 Tw
(The Court re-articulated this view in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, in) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.73 Tw
(which the plaintiffs alleged that a state tax credit violated the) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.57 Tw
(Commerce Clause. Plaintiffs claimed standing by virtue of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(their status as Ohio taxpayers, alleging that the franchise tax) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(credit provided to DaimlerChrysler ) Tj
(depletes the funds of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.06 Tw
(State of Ohio to which the Plaintiffs contribute through their) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(tax payments and thus diminishes the total funds available for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(lawful uses and imposes disproportionate burdens on them.) Tj
() Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.82 Tw
(126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.82 Tw
(Ct. at 1862 \(internal quotations and brackets omitted\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
.11 Tw
(The Court held that plaintiffs did not have standing because) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(their injury as taxpayers was not ) Tj
(concrete and particularized) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.26 Tw
(but instead a grievance the taxpayer suffers in some indefinite) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.5 Tw
(way in common with people generally.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. \(citation and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(internal quotations omitted\). The injury was ) Tj
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(`conjectural or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(hypothetical' in that it depends on how legislators respond to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(a reduction in revenue, if that is the consequence of the cred-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(it. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
([E]stablishing redressability,) Tj
( the Court held, ) Tj
(re-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.04 Tw
(quires speculating that abolishing the challenged credit will) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(redound to the benefit of the taxpayer because legislators will) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(pass along the supposed increased revenue in the form of tax) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(reductions.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id. ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(at 1863. According to the Court, the limita-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(tions on standing in federal taxpayer cases ) Tj
(applied with undi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(minished force to state taxpayers.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
4 Tw
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( plainly undermines ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s standing) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(principles. Under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, plaintiffs had to meet a three-part) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.3 Tw
(test for state taxpayer standing: \(1\) taxpayer status, \(2\) the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(funds in question were appropriated from the state's general) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(funds, and \(3\) the state was spending the funds for an unlaw-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(ful purpose. 741 F.2d at 1180. We did not require that the tax-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(payer prove that his tax burden would be lightened by the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(cancellation of the challenged expenditure. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See also Cammack) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1597) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
77 0 obj
3986
endobj
75 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 76 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 23 23
79 0 obj
<<
/Length 80 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.56 Tw
0 Tc
(v. Waihee) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 932 F.2d 765, 769 \(9th Cir. 1991\) \(noting that) Tj
0 -13 Td
.02 Tw
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the leading case on this issue in the circuit, does not) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.34 Tw
(require that the taxpayer prove that her tax burden will be) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(lightened by elimination of the questioned expenditure) Tj
(\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
2.45 Tw
([9]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
2.45 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, by contrast, requires that state tax-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
5.14 Tw
(payers establish a particularized, concrete injury that is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(redressable by the court's judgment. As the Supreme Court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(observed, the Plaintiffs' alleged injury is speculative if redress) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(ultimately depends on how the legislature responds to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(court's judgment. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2 Tw
(Ct. at 1862-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.52 Tw
(63. But the ) Tj
([f]ederal courts may not assume a particulate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(exercise of . . . state fiscal discretion in establishing standing.) Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. at 1864. The Court concluded that ) Tj
(state taxpayers have no) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(standing under Article III to challenge state tax or spending) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.73 Tw
(decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(1864 \(footnotes omitted\). ) Tj
11 -26 Td
(2.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Application of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
1 -26 Td
1.08 Tw
(Applying the reasoning of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( to the facts of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(the case at hand, we conclude that Plaintiffs do not have) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(standing as state taxpayers to challenge the appropriation of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(state revenue to OHA. Plaintiffs argue that they meet the test) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(for standing under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( because \(1\) their injury) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(is concrete and particularized, \(2\) the depletion of the state) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(treasury is actual and ongoing, and \(3\) the injury they suffer) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.2 Tw
(is redressable through declaratory and injunctive relief. We) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(address each contention in turn. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
5.61 Tw
([10]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( First, Plaintiffs maintain that because they ) Tj
(are) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(required to pay taxes to support racial discrimination against) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.37 Tw
(themselves,) Tj
( they suffer a particularized injury that ) Tj
(is not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(shared by people in general or by Hawaii state taxpayers gen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(erally, but only by [taxpayers] . . . who lack the favored) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
([native-Hawaiian] ancestry) Tj
( and benefit from OHA programs.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(But Plaintiffs do not allege that they have suffered any harm) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.27 Tw
(apart from the fact that they are taxpayers and do not like) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1598) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
80 0 obj
3901
endobj
78 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 79 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 24 24
82 0 obj
<<
/Length 83 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.9 Tw
0 Tc
(OHA's programs. Plaintiffs' argument, taken to its logical) Tj
0 -13 Td
.95 Tw
(conclusion, would significantly expand state taxpayer Article) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.07 Tw
(III standing by allowing a taxpayer to challenge any govern-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.7 Tw
(mental expenditure he does not like and for which he has not) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.1 Tw
(applied: Expenditures from the common fisc for veteran's) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.33 Tw
(benefits could be challenged by any taxpayer who had not) Tj
0 -13 Td
.03 Tw
(served in the military; welfare benefits could be challenged by) Tj
0 -13 Td
.42 Tw
(any individual not on welfare; educational expenditures could) Tj
0 -13 Td
.02 Tw
(be invalidated by a suit brought by an individual who does not) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.78 Tw
(have children in the public school system. Under Plaintiffs') Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(theory, even the Ohio taxpayers in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( could) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.27 Tw
(argue that while all Ohio taxpayers bore the burden of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.78 Tw
(depletion of funds from the fisc, taxpayers who were) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(employed by DaimlerChrysler received a benefit in the form) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.74 Tw
(of a paycheck and thus a taxpaying non-employee suffers a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(particularized injury. We think that the Court's reasoning in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( extends to such creative arguments. As the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.9 Tw
(Court noted, conferring standing on state taxpayers ) Tj
(simply) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(because their tax burden gives them an interest in the state) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(treasury would interpose the federal courts as virtually contin-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.4 Tw
(uing monitors of the wisdom and soundness of state fiscal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(administration, contrary to the more modest role Article III) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(envisions for federal courts.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.42 Tw
(Ct. at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(1864 \(internal quotations omitted\). We decline to play such a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(role and accordingly reject Plaintiffs' contention that they suf-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(fer a particularized injury. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.25 Tw
([11]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Second, Plaintiffs assert the injury they suffer is ) Tj
(ac-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(tual, imminent and ongoing) Tj
( as the State Legislature contin-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.74 Tw
(ues to appropriate sums from the General Fund for OHA.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(They contrast this with the Supreme Court holding in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Daim-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(lerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, which they characterize as involving a tax rebate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(that was a ) Tj
(conjectural) Tj
( depletion of the state treasury. How-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(ever, the plaintifs misapprehend what we look to when deter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(mining whether the injury is ) Tj
(conjectural or hypothetical. As) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(the Supreme Court noted, a plaintiff's injury is ) Tj
(conjectural) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.42 Tw
(or hypothetical) Tj
( when it ) Tj
(depends on how legislators) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.46 Tw
(respond to a change in revenue. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.46 Tw
(Ct.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1599) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
83 0 obj
3962
endobj
81 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 82 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 25 25
85 0 obj
<<
/Length 86 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.23 Tw
0 Tc
(at 1862. Plaintiffs here overlook the fact that whether or not) Tj
0 -13 Td
.63 Tw
(their injury is redressable is entirely speculative. It is not cer-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.11 Tw
(tain that even if all funding for OHA were terminated, that the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.06 Tw
(Legislature would pass the savings on to the Plaintiffs in the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.51 Tw
(form of tax breaks or refrain from spending the funds on pro-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.08 Tw
(grams benefitting yet another subgroup of the Hawaiian popu-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.96 Tw
(lation to which Plaintiffs do not belong. The flow of funds) Tj
0 -13 Td
.07 Tw
(from the treasury to support OHA is actual and concrete; what) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.7 Tw
(the Legislature would do with those funds absent OHA is) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(speculative. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.53 Tw
([12]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Third, Plaintiffs assert that their injury is redressable) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(through declaratory or injunctive relief. For the reasons stated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.58 Tw
(above, any benefit that would accrue to Plaintiffs from an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(injunction or declaratory judgement is speculative. Plaintiffs) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.32 Tw
(argue that the Supreme Court has allowed individuals who) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(can allege a distinct and palpable injury to themselves to sue) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(and invoke the public interest even if the injury is shared by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(a large class of other potential litigants. However, these cases) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(are readily distinguishable and involved core functions of our) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(democracy, such as voting, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see Baker v. Carr) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 369 U.S. 186) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.94 Tw
(\(1962\) \(involving a justiciable question of voting district) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(apportionment\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 383) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(U.S. 663 \(1966\) \(striking down a poll tax\), or issues of eco-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(nomic liberty outside the taxation context, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(McGowan v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.21 Tw
(Maryland) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 366 U.S. 420 \(1961\) \(involving harm from eco-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(nomic loss and fines from Sunday Closing Laws\). The Court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(has consistently denied both federal and state taxpayers stand-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(ing under Article III to object to a particular expenditure of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.96 Tw
(funds simply because they are taxpayers. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Valley) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(Forge) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 454 U.S. 464 \(denying standing to taxpayers to chal-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.91 Tw
(lenge conveyance of government land to a private religious) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(college\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reservists Comm.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 418 U.S. 208 \(denying taxpayers) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.67 Tw
(standing to challenge members of Congress' membership in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(armed forces reserve units\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Richardson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 418) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(U.S. 166 \(1974\) \(denying taxpayer standing to force publica-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(tion of the receipts and expenditures of the CIA\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Doremus v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(Bd. of Educ.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342 U.S. 429 \(1952\) \(holding that the rationales) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1600) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
86 0 obj
4038
endobj
84 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 85 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 26 26
89 0 obj
<<
/Length 90 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.75 Tw
0 Tc
(for rejecting federal taxpayer standing apply with equal force) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
0 Tw
(to state taxpayer suits\)) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(; Ala. Power Co. v. Ickes) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 302 U.S. 464,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.53 Tw
(478 \(1938\) \(holding that ) Tj
(the interest of a taxpayer in the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.96 Tw
(moneys of the federal treasury furnishes no basis) Tj
( to argue) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.77 Tw
(that a federal agency's practices are unconstitutional\). The) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.65 Tw
(Court has allowed some Establishment Clause challenges to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.13 Tw
(federal spending to go forward, but this is a narrow exception,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.03 Tw
(not the rule. The Court has declined to extend this exception) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.52 Tw
(to other areas. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.52 Tw
(Ct. at 1864-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.51 Tw
(65; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bowen v. Kendrick) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 487 U.S. 589, 618 \(1988\) \() Tj
(Although) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.82 Tw
(we have considered the problem of standing and Article III) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.08 Tw
(limitations on federal jurisdiction many times since [) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Flast) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(],) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1 Tw
(we have consistently adhered to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Flast) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and the narrow excep-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.11 Tw
(tion it created to the general rule against taxpayer standing) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.89 Tw
(. . . .\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Flast v. Cohen) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 392 U.S. 83 \(1968\) \(creating an) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.1 Tw
(exception for Establishment Clause challenges to the general) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(standing bar for taxpayer suits\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.7 Td
1.9 Tw
([13]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In sum, we hold that these ) Tj
(state taxpayers have no) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(standing under Article III to challenge [Hawaii] state tax or) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.28 Tw
(spending decision simply by virtue of their status as taxpay-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
5.57 Tw
(ers. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
5.57 Tw
(Ct. at 1864. Although it) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.45 Tw
(appears to us that there are no plaintiffs who have standing to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2 Tw
(challenge the OHA funding, we are unwilling to make that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.41 Tw
(final judgment on this record before us. Accordingly, we) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(remand to the district court for further proceedings. ) Tj
11 -26.7 Td
(3.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The United States as an Indispensable Party ) Tj
1 -26.6 Td
.87 Tw
(OHA argues that even if Plaintiffs have taxpayer standing,) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.55 Tw
(under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the United States is also an indispensable party) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.52 Tw
(to any equal protection challenge to its programs. The district) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.58 Tw
(court rejected the argument on the ground that DHHL/HHC) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2 Tw
(and OHA have distinct origins. In contrast to DHHL/HHC,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.18 Tw
([n]othing in the Admission Act requires the creation of OHA) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(or governs OHA's actions.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(IV, 299 F. Supp. 2d at) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(1127. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1601) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
90 0 obj
3856
endobj
88 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 89 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 27 27
92 0 obj
<<
/Length 93 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
2.63 Tw
0 Tc
([14]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The district court is correct with respect to OHA's) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.46 Tw
(expenditure of tax revenue. OHA was created nearly twenty) Tj
0 -13 Td
.85 Tw
(years after Hawaii's admission to the union. In 1978, Hawaii) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.82 Tw
(amended its Constitution to add Sections 5 and 6creating) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.47 Tw
(OHA and defining its dutiesto Article XII. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.42 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
4.47 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.48 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.47 Tw
(ONST) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.48 Tw
(. art. XII, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.48 Tw
(5-6. The Constitution does not provide for) Tj
0 -13 Td
.64 Tw
(OHA's funding, which is provided by statute. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.63 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.64 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.23 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.18 Tw
(EV) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
4.23 Tw
(. S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.18 Tw
(TAT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
4.23 Tw
(. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.23 Tw
(10-3\(1\) \() Tj
(A pro rata portion of all funds) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.6 Tw
(derived from the public land trust shall be funded in an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.61 Tw
(amount to be determined by the legislature.) Tj
(\), 10-13.5) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(\(Twenty per cent of all funds derived from the public land) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(trust . . . shall be expended by [OHA] . . . .) Tj
(\). Unlike the lease) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.94 Tw
(eligibility requirement imposed by the HHCA and adminis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(tered by DHHL/HHC, the United States has no right to con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.13 Tw
(sent or withhold consent to the creation of OHA or its) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(administration of programs for native Hawaiians or Hawai-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.95 Tw
(ians. Because Plaintiffs can prevail against OHA ) Tj
(without) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(holding [Section 4] of the Admissions Act unconstitutional,) Tj
() Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(nothing ) Tj
(requires the participation of . . . the United States.) Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.36 Tw
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342 F.3d at 944. We decline to extend ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(claims against OHA concerning tax revenue. ) Tj
0 -26 Td
(B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Plaintiffs' Trust Beneficiary Standing) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.83 Tw
([15]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Plaintiffs allege, as an independent basis for standing,) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(that as trust beneficiaries they may sue OHA because OHA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(receives trust revenues. Although the United States is not an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(indispensable party to a challenge to the appropriation of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(tax) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(revenue, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Part IV.A.3, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(supra) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, this is not true with respect) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(to OHA's receipt of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(trust) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( revenue. We have previously held) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.88 Tw
(that the expenditure of trust revenue is governed by the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(Admission Act. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Price v. Akaka) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 928 F.2d 824, 827 \(9th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.53 Tw
(1990\). Any challenge to the expenditure of trust revenue) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(brought by alleged trust beneficiaries must challenge the sub-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(stantive terms of the trust, which are found in the Admission) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(Act. For the reasons we explained in Part III.A.2, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(supra, ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(United States is an indispensable party to any challenge to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.51 Tw
(Admission Act. Accordingly, although the United States is) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1602) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
93 0 obj
4600
endobj
91 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 92 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 28 28
95 0 obj
<<
/Length 96 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
4.33 Tw
0 Tc
(not an indispensable party with respect to challenges to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.71 Tw
(OHA's expenditure of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(tax) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( revenue, it remains indispensable) Tj
0 -13 Td
.44 Tw
(with respect to challenges to the expenditure of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(trust) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( revenue.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.9 Tw
([16]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Plaintiffs' attempt to challenge OHA's expenditure of) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.4 Tw
(trust revenue thus suffers from the same fatal flaw as its chal-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.71 Tw
(lenge to the DHHL/HHC lease eligibility requirements. The) Tj
0 -13 Td
.53 Tw
(United States is an indispensable party to the challenge to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(expenditure of trust revenue, and yet Plaintiffs cannot estab-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.39 Tw
(lish standing to sue the United States either as taxpayers or as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(trust beneficiaries. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Parts III.A.2 and III.B., ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(supra) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. Plain-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(tiffs therefore cannot proceed with that claim. We do not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(reach the issue whether Plaintiffs' breach of trust claim is oth-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(erwise cognizable under the common law of trusts, which was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.39 Tw
(the basis of the district court's dismissal of the breach of trust) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(claim against OHA. Rather, we affirm the dismissal on the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(alternative ground that Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate standing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(to sue an indispensable party. ) Tj
75.078 -26 Td
(V.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(POLITICAL QUESTION) Tj
-63.078 -26 Td
.45 Tw
(The final question is whether, assuming any Plaintiffs have) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.2 Tw
(standing to bring a cause of action against the state defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(dants, that cause of action presents a nonjusticiable political) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.43 Tw
(question. The district court reasoned that in order to rule on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.21 Tw
(Plaintiffs' equal protection claims, the court would have to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(determine what level of scrutiny to apply. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Compare Grutter) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.87 Tw
(v. Bollinger) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 539 U.S. 306, 328-33 \(2003\) \(applying strict) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(scrutiny to uphold race-conscious admissions policy at state) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(university law school\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(and ) Tj
(Gratz v. Bollinger) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 539 U.S. 244,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.34 Tw
(270-75 \(2003\) \(striking down race-conscious undergraduate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(admissions policy at state university under strict scrutiny\),) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(with Morton v. Mancari) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 417 U.S. 535 \(1974\) \(applying ratio-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(nal basis, rather than strict scrutiny, to employment preference) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(that benefitted members of Indian tribe because it furthered) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.74 Tw
(Indian self-government\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(and ) Tj
(Alaska Chapter, Associated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(Gen. Contractors of Am., Inc. v. Pierce) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 694 F.2d 1162 \(9th) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.95 Tw
(Cir. 1982\) \(applying rational basis test to native Alaskans) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1603) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
96 0 obj
3874
endobj
94 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 95 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 29 29
98 0 obj
<<
/Length 99 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.38 Tw
0 Tc
(based on the federal government's ) Tj
(special obligation) Tj
( to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.81 Tw
(Indians\). The district court reasoned that although Congress) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.77 Tw
(has plenary authority over Indian affairs, it ) Tj
(has not yet) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.67 Tw
(clearly recognized Hawaiians as being equivalent to Indians) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.87 Tw
(or Indian tribes for purposes of the [) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Mancari) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(] analysis.) Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( VI, 305 F. Supp. 2d at 1172. Noting that ) Tj
(Congress) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.22 Tw
(has begun to include Hawaiians as beneficiaries in bills pro-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.5 Tw
(viding services to Native Americans) Tj
( and had pending before) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(it the ) Tj
(Akaka Bill) Tj
( that would ) Tj
(equate Hawaiians to Indians) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(and/or Indian tribes,) Tj
( the court observed that ) Tj
(Congress is still) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.17 Tw
(speaking on the issue.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1173. The district court con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(cluded that Congress ) Tj
(should make the decision as to whether) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(Hawaiians should be treated as Indians for purposes of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
([) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Mancari) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(] analysis) Tj
( and, ) Tj
(in recognition of the continuing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(debate, the court would ) Tj
(defer[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.33 Tw
(] to Congress.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1173,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(1174. We hold that these claims do not raise a nonjusticiable) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(political question. We therefore reverse the district court's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(dismissal on political question grounds. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
8.55 Tw
(Chief Justice Marshall explained in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marbury) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( that) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
([q]uestions, in their nature political, or which are, by the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.96 Tw
(be made in this court.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marbury v. Madison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 5 U.S. \(1) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(Cranch\) 137, 170 \(1803\). The Court announced the modern) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.62 Tw
(formulation of the political question doctrine in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Baker v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Carr) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(:) Tj
22 -26 Td
.41 Tw
(Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(a political question is found [1] a textually demon-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.94 Tw
(strable constitutional commitment of the issue to a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(coordinate political department; or [2] a lack of judi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.94 Tw
(cially discoverable and manageable standards for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(resolving it; or [3] the impossibility of deciding) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.65 Tw
(without an initial policy determination of a kind) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or [4] the impossi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(bility of a court's undertaking independent resolution) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.04 Tw
(without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(branches of government; or [5] an unusual need for) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1604) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
99 0 obj
3867
endobj
97 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 98 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 30 30
101 0 obj
<<
/Length 102 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
6.06 Tw
0 Tc
(unquestioning adherence to a political decision) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.04 Tw
(already made; or [6] the potentiality of embarrass-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.66 Tw
(ment from multifarious pronouncements by various) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(departments on one question. ) Tj
-22 -26.7 Td
1.36 Tw
(369 U.S. 186, 217 \(1962\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Alperin v. Vatican Bank) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 410) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.88 Tw
(F.3d 532, 537-40 \(9th Cir. 2005\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cert. denied) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.88 Tw
(Ct.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.56 Tw
(1141 ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(and) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.56 Tw
(Ct. 1160 \(2006\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(EEOC v. Peabody W. Coal) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.8 Tw
(Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 400 F.3d 774, 784 \(9th Cir. 2005\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cert. denied) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.61 Tw
(S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.61 Tw
(Ct. 1164 \(2006\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Kahawaiolaa v. Norton) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 386 F.3d 1271,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(1275 \(9th Cir. 2004\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.6 Td
.33 Tw
([17]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We have recently addressed the political question doc-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.45 Tw
(trine in the context of a challenge to the executive's failure to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.57 Tw
(recognize Hawaiians as federal Indian tribes in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Kahawaiolaa) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.43 Tw
(386 F.3d 1271. In that case, native Hawaiians alleged that the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.41 Tw
(Department of Interior had violated the equal protection com-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.57 Tw
(ponent of the Fifth Amendment in regulations limiting recog-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.21 Tw
(nition of new tribes to ) Tj
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.21 Tw
(`those American Indian groups) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.26 Tw
(indigenous to the continental United States') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.26 Tw
(which meant) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(that ) Tj
(native Hawaiians are excluded from eligibility to peti-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.22 Tw
(tion for tribal recognition under the regulations.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1274) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.32 Tw
(\(quoting 25 C.F.R. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.32 Tw
(83.3\(a\)\). The district court dismissed the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(suit against the Department of Interior, in part because matters) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.38 Tw
(of tribal recognition raise nonjusticiable political questions.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.3 Tw
(We disagreed with the district court on this point. We noted) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.14 Tw
(that ) Tj
([i]f the question before us were whether a remedy would) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.12 Tw
(lie against Congress to compel tribal recognition, the answer) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.22 Tw
(would be readily apparent. . . . a suit that sought to direct) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.26 Tw
(Congress to federally recognize an Indian tribe would be non-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.85 Tw
(justiciable as a political question.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1275-76. We found,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.53 Tw
(however, that the plaintiffs did not seek tribal recognition;) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.03 Tw
(rather, they wanted the Department of Interior to allow them) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2 Tw
(to apply for recognition ) Tj
(under the same regulatory criteria) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.17 Tw
(applied to indigenous peoples in other states.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. at 1276. We) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.27 Tw
(concluded that the plaintiffs' suit was not barred by the politi-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(cal question doctrine. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1605) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
102 0 obj
4111
endobj
100 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 101 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 31 31
104 0 obj
<<
/Length 105 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
1.45 Tw
0 Tc
(In order to stay our hand in this case, we must determine) Tj
-12 -13 Td
4.9 Tw
(that the resolution of Plaintiffs' equal protection claims) Tj
0 -13 Td
.66 Tw
(against OHA would interfere with the constitutional duties of) Tj
0 -13 Td
.17 Tw
(one of the political branches, whether that duty has been exer-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.57 Tw
(cised or not. The district court and the state defendants locate) Tj
0 -13 Td
.21 Tw
(that ) Tj
(textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.23 Tw
(issue) Tj
( in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitu-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.09 Tw
(tion: ) Tj
(The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(merce . . . with the Indian Tribes.) Tj
( The Court has observed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.91 Tw
(that ) Tj
(Congress possesses plenary power over Indian affairs,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(including the power to modify or eliminate tribal rights.) Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
3.17 Tw
(South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 522 U.S. 329, 343) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(\(1998\). Thus, the ) Tj
(questions whether, to what extent, and for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.92 Tw
(what time [Indians] shall be recognized and dealt with as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(dependent tribes requiring the guardianship and protection of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(the United States are to be determined by Congress, and not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.2 Tw
(by the courts.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Sandoval) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 231 U.S. 28, 46) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(1913\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.41 Tw
(Here, no party seeks to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(compel) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Congress to recognize the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(tribal status of Hawaiians. Instead, OHA argues that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(if) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(gress has treated Hawaiians as a tribe, then under the author-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.63 Tw
(ity of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Mancari) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, OHA would have to demonstrate only a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(rational connection between its Hawaiian preferences and its) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.46 Tw
(programs. Plaintiffs argue that Congress' failure, so far, to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(recognize Hawaiians' tribal status does not ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(prevent) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the courts) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(from deciding whether OHA's Hawaiian-preference violates) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.56 Tw
(Effectively, the district court found that it could not rule on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(the equal protection claim until it could determine the appro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(priate level of scrutiny, and it could not determine the level) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.4 Tw
(of scrutiny until Congress decided to grant or not to grant) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(tribal status to Hawaiians. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.81 Tw
([18]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Nothing in the claims Plaintiffs have asserted or the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(remedy they seek invites the district court to exercise powers) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(reserved to Congress or to the President. The district court has) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(not been asked to declare tribal status where Congress has) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1606) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
105 0 obj
3819
endobj
103 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 106 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 104 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 32 32
108 0 obj
<<
/Length 109 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.73 Tw
0 Tc
(declined. Instead, it is asked to interpret the implications of) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
0 Tw
(past congressional action or inaction for equal protection anal-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.42 Tw
(ysis. Indeed, courts are frequently called upon to ) Tj
(scrutiniz[e]) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.43 Tw
(Indian legislation to determine whether it violates . . . equal) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.55 Tw
(protection.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Del. Tribal Bus. Comm. v. Weeks) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 430 U.S. 73,) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.81 Tw
(84 \(1977\). The fact that Congress enjoys ) Tj
(plenary power . . .) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.15 Tw
(in matters of Indian affairs `does not mean that all federal leg-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.63 Tw
(islation concerning Indians is . . . immune from judicial scru-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.63 Tw
(tiny.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.63 Tw
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 83-84 \(quoting Brief of the Secretary of the) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1 Tw
(Interior\). In general, ) Tj
(the political question doctrine does not) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
4.04 Tw
(bar adjudication of a facial constitutional challenge even) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.71 Tw
(though Congress has plenary authority, and the executive has) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.04 Tw
(broad delegation, over Indian affairs.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Kahawaiolaa) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 386 F.3d) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(at 1276. ) Tj
12 -27.2 Td
0 Tw
(In the exercise of its power to regulate commerce with Indi-) Tj
-12 -13.7 Td
1.62 Tw
(ans and recognize their sovereign status, Congress might be) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
3.22 Tw
(able to alter the relative burdens of proof and persuasion) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.58 Tw
(shouldered by Plaintiffs and OHA in this case.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( But Congress) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.53 Tw
(has no obligation to exercise its Article I, Section 8, Clause) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.39 Tw
(3 powers in any particular way. That it has, so far, declined) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.66 Tw
(to do so does not excuse the district court from hearing the) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.75 Tw
(case. Congress does not have a constitutionally committed) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2 Tw
(power to set the level of scrutiny for those claiming native) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.42 Tw
(American status; it has the constitutionally committed author-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.63 Tw
(ity to regulate affairs with native Americans, and the courts) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.22 Tw
(then determine which level of scrutiny is warranted by Con-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.17 Tw
(gress' action or inaction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g., Three Affiliated Tribes of) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.88 Tw
(Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng'g) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 476 U.S. 877, 882) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
3.87 Tw
(\(1986\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Antelope) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 430 U.S. 641, 645-46) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(1977\);) Tj
( Mancari) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 417 U.S. at 553 n.24. ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.9 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.93 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(We couch this in the conditional because the Court in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Rice) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( suggested) Tj
-10 -11.6 Td
.57 Tw
(that it remains ) Tj
(a matter of some dispute . . . whether Congress may treat) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.04 Tw
(the native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes.) Tj
( 528 U.S. at 518. Like) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.15 Tw
(the Court, ) Tj
([w]e can stay far off that difficult terrain) Tj
( in this appeal. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.6 Td
1 Tw
(at 519. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -430.85 m 300 -430.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1607) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
109 0 obj
4115
endobj
107 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 106 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 48 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 108 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 33 33
111 0 obj
<<
/Length 112 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
4.53 Tw
0 Tc
(Moreover, we note that even if Congress had treated) Tj
-12 -14.3 Td
2.14 Tw
(Hawaiians or native Hawaiians as a tribe, the district court) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.04 Tw
(would still have to determine whether OHA's classification) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.84 Tw
(was based on race or on tribal status. As we observed in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -14.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(Kahawaiolaa) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(: ) Tj
22 -28.3 Td
.78 Tw
() Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
.78 Tw
(As ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Rice ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(illustrates, an ) Tj
(Indian tribe) Tj
( may be clas-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.39 Tw
(sified as a ) Tj
(racial group) Tj
( in particular instances . . . .) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
0 Tw
(We reject the notion that distinctions based on Indian) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
3.28 Tw
(or tribal status can never be racial classifications) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.32 Tw
(subject to strict scrutiny. . . . Government discrimi-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.91 Tw
(nation against Indians based on race or national ori-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.14 Tw
(gin and not on membership or non-membership in) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.32 Tw
(tribal groups can be race discrimination subject to) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(strict scrutiny. ) Tj
-22 -28.3 Td
1.17 Tw
(386 F.3d at 1279 \(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Adarand Constructors v. Pena) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 515) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.14 Tw
(U.S. 200, 227 \(1995\)\). This, too, is a determination properly) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(left to the courts. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -28.2 Td
2.28 Tw
([19]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Assuming that some Plaintiffs have standing, Plain-) Tj
-12 -14.2 Td
4.52 Tw
(tiffs' claims squarely and exclusively raise a Fourteenth) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.81 Tw
(Amendment claim. The courts must therefore determine the) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.17 Tw
(proper level of scrutiny. We do not require further action by) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
2.12 Tw
(Congress to inform that determination. To deny the federal) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.25 Tw
(courts their authority to adjudicate an equal protection claim) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.82 Tw
(simply because Congress expressed its intent with less than) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.16 Tw
(complete lucidity is to expand the political question doctrine) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.46 Tw
(beyond its historical limits. In doing so, it would restrict judi-) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.08 Tw
(cial authority in unprecedented ways; such an expansive inter-) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
3.83 Tw
(pretation subverts the very separation of powers that the) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.03 Tw
(political question doctrine is designed to protect. Although the) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.83 Tw
(Supreme Court was able to postpone consideration of those) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.24 Tw
(equal protection questions of ) Tj
(considerable moment and diffi-) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.81 Tw
(culty, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Rice) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 528 U.S. at 518-19, we do not have that luxury.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1608) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
112 0 obj
3346
endobj
110 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 106 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 111 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 34 34
114 0 obj
<<
/Length 115 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12.312 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(VI.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING MISCELLANEOUS) Tj
100.356 -13 Td
(ARGUMENTS) Tj
-100.668 -26 Td
3.61 Tw
(Plaintiffs make several additional arguments on appeal,) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.25 Tw
(none of which is meritorious. Plaintiffs contend that the dis-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.36 Tw
(trict court erred in striking its Counter Motion for Summary) Tj
0 -13 Td
.25 Tw
(Judgment of December 15, 2003. The district court cited mul-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.36 Tw
(tiple grounds in its December 16, 2003 unpublished Order for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.25 Tw
(striking the motion, including: the motion was not a true) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(counter motion because it raised numerous issues not raised) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(in the motion which it purportedly countered; it was untimely;) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(and the motion was not filed in the proper round of summary) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(judgment rounds, as scheduled by the district court in a previ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ous order. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.52 Tw
([20]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We review for abuse of discretion challenges to pre-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(trial management. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Navellier v. Sletten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 262 F.3d 923, 941 \(9th) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(Cir. 2001\). ) Tj
(The district court is given broad discretion in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Johnson v. Mam-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(moth Recreations, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 975 F.2d 604, 607 \(9th Cir. 1992\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(\(citation and internal quotation marks omitted\). Plaintiffs have) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(not demonstrated that the district court's management of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(summary judgment phase of this trial constituted an abuse of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(discretion. The district court's December 16, 2003 Order is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(affirmed. Similarly, we are unpersuaded by Plaintiffs' conten-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(tion that the district court's pretrial management warrants the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(reassignment of this case to another judge and their request is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(denied. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.11 Tw
([21]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Plaintiffs also appeal the district court's May 5, 2004) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(unpublished Order awarding roughly $5300 in costs to select) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(defendants on the ground that imposing such costs will have) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.81 Tw
(a ) Tj
(chilling effect) Tj
( on civil rights litigation. We review an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(award of costs for abuse of discretion. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Evanow v. M/V Nep-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(tune) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 163 F.3d 1108, 1113 \(9th Cir. 1998\). Plaintiffs have not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.46 Tw
(demonstrated that the award of such modest costs, divided) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(among multiple plaintiffs, constitutes an abuse of discretion.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(The district court's May 5, 2004 Order is affirmed. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1609) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
115 0 obj
3563
endobj
113 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 106 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 114 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 35 35
117 0 obj
<<
/Length 118 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
1.53 Tw
0 Tc
([22]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Finally, Plaintiffs seek reversal of the district court's) Tj
-12 -13 Td
5.38 Tw
(January 26, 2004 unpublished Order denying Plaintiffs') Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(motion to compel discovery. A district court's discovery rul-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(ings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.06 Tw
(Fisher) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 137 F.3d 1158, 1165 \(9th Cir. 1998\). Again, we find) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(no abuse of discretion, and the order is affirmed. ) Tj
95.508 -26 Td
(VII.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(CONCLUSION) Tj
-83.508 -26 Td
5.85 Tw
(The district court's orders are variously affirmed or) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(reversed as follows. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
4.13 Tw
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( I, 198 F. Supp. 2d 1165 \(D. Haw. 2002\), is) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.24 Tw
(affirmed in part and reversed in part. We reverse the court's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(holding that Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the appro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(priation of state tax revenue to OHA. We reverse the holding) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.5 Tw
(that Plantiffs have standing as taxpayers to challenge the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(appropriation of tax revenue to DHHL/HHC. We affirm the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(denial of standing to challenge the settlement of past claims) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(against OHA. We affirm the denial of standing to challenge) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(the issuance of bonds and the denial of standing to challenge) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(all other spending that does not originate in tax revenue. The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(remaining issues addressed in that order are not on appeal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
3.73 Tw
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( II, 299 F. Supp. 2d 1090 \(D. Haw. 2002\), is) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(affirmed in part and reversed in part. We reverse Plaintiffs') Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(standing to challenge the appropriation of state tax revenue to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(the OHA. We reverse the grant of standing to challenge the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(appropriation of tax revenue to DHHL/HHC. We affirm the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(denial of standing to sue as trust beneficiaries. We affirm the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.86 Tw
(denial of the motion to dismiss the tax revenue claim against) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.46 Tw
(OHA under the political question doctrine. We reverse the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.86 Tw
(denial of the motion to dismiss the tax revenue claim against) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.92 Tw
(DHHL/HHC. The remaining issues in that order are not on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(appeal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
3.33 Tw
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(III, 299 F. Supp. 2d 1107 \(D. Haw. 2002\), is) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.74 Tw
(affirmed on different grounds. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(IV, 299 F. Supp. 2d) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1610) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
118 0 obj
3376
endobj
116 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 106 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 117 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 36 36
120 0 obj
<<
/Length 121 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.11 Tw
0 Tc
(1114 \(D. Haw. 2003\), and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(V, 299 F. Supp. 2d 1129) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.77 Tw
(\(D. Haw. 2003\), are affirmed. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( VI, 305 F. Supp. 2d) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.13 Tw
(1161 \(D. Haw. 2004\), is reversed. All remaining orders in this) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(case are affirmed. ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
(The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.2 Td
2.66 Tw
(AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(REMANDED.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1611) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
121 0 obj
1015
endobj
119 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 106 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 120 0 R
>>
endobj
1 0 obj
[ /PDF /Text ]
endobj
122 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
123 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Bold
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 139.00
/StemH 69.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 676
/XHeight 461
/Ascent 676
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F1
/BaseFont /Times-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300
250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500
930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778
611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500
333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500
556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400
722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556
667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000
389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722
722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ]
/Encoding 122 0 R
/FontDescriptor 123 0 R
>>
endobj
124 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
125 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Roman
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 84.00
/StemH 42.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 662
/XHeight 450
/Ascent 683
/Descent -217
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F2
/BaseFont /Times-Roman
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300
250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444
921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722
556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500
333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500
500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400
667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611
444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556
611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ]
/Encoding 124 0 R
/FontDescriptor 125 0 R
>>
endobj
126 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 240 /apple ]
>>
endobj
127 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Symbol
/Flags 4
/FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 85.00
/StemH 42.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 0
/XHeight 0
/Ascent 0
/Descent 0
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F3
/BaseFont /Symbol
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444
549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722
768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500
500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549
549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603
400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658
823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713
768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603
494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494
790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ]
/Encoding 126 0 R
/FontDescriptor 127 0 R
>>
endobj
128 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
129 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Italic
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 76.00
/StemH 38.00
/ItalicAngle -15.50
/CapHeight 653
/XHeight 441
/Ascent 683
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F4
/BaseFont /Times-Italic
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300
250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500
920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722
611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500
333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500
500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400
667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611
611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611
500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500
611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ]
/Encoding 128 0 R
/FontDescriptor 129 0 R
>>
endobj
130 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
131 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Helvetica-Bold
/Flags 32
/FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 140.00
/StemH 70.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 718
/XHeight 532
/Ascent 718
/Descent -207
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
48 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F5
/BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278
278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333
278 333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278
556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611
975 722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778
667 778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556
278 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611
611 611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400
722 611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722
667 667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
556 333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611
667 556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611
611 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333
1000 722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000
278 1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722
722 889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ]
/Encoding 130 0 R
/FontDescriptor 131 0 R
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/Kids [3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 17 0 R 20 0 R 23 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 132 0 R
>>
endobj
29 0 obj
<<
/Kids [26 0 R 30 0 R 33 0 R 36 0 R 39 0 R 42 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 132 0 R
>>
endobj
49 0 obj
<<
/Kids [45 0 R 50 0 R 53 0 R 56 0 R 59 0 R 62 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 132 0 R
>>
endobj
68 0 obj
<<
/Kids [65 0 R 69 0 R 72 0 R 75 0 R 78 0 R 81 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 132 0 R
>>
endobj
87 0 obj
<<
/Kids [84 0 R 88 0 R 91 0 R 94 0 R 97 0 R 100 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 132 0 R
>>
endobj
106 0 obj
<<
/Kids [103 0 R 107 0 R 110 0 R 113 0 R 116 0 R 119 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 132 0 R
>>
endobj
132 0 obj
<<
/Kids [10 0 R 29 0 R 49 0 R 68 0 R 87 0 R 106 0 R]
/Count 36
/Type /Pages
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 132 0 R
>>
endobj
133 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (Wednesday February 7, 2007 14:47:39)
/Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2)
/Producer (ECMP5)
>>
endobj
xref
0 134
0000000000 65535 f
0000148399 00000 n
0000161455 00000 n
0000006274 00000 n
0000000044 00000 n
0000006251 00000 n
0000149866 00000 n
0000152522 00000 n
0000154080 00000 n
0000156731 00000 n
0000160611 00000 n
0000011219 00000 n
0000006488 00000 n
0000011195 00000 n
0000013320 00000 n
0000011424 00000 n
0000013296 00000 n
0000015607 00000 n
0000013536 00000 n
0000015583 00000 n
0000020662 00000 n
0000015801 00000 n
0000020638 00000 n
0000024450 00000 n
0000020867 00000 n
0000024426 00000 n
0000028506 00000 n
0000024655 00000 n
0000028482 00000 n
0000160728 00000 n
0000033018 00000 n
0000028711 00000 n
0000032994 00000 n
0000037651 00000 n
0000033223 00000 n
0000037627 00000 n
0000041612 00000 n
0000037858 00000 n
0000041588 00000 n
0000046003 00000 n
0000041819 00000 n
0000045979 00000 n
0000050021 00000 n
0000046210 00000 n
0000049997 00000 n
0000054363 00000 n
0000050228 00000 n
0000054339 00000 n
0000159386 00000 n
0000160846 00000 n
0000058531 00000 n
0000054582 00000 n
0000058507 00000 n
0000062688 00000 n
0000058738 00000 n
0000062664 00000 n
0000067002 00000 n
0000062895 00000 n
0000066978 00000 n
0000071420 00000 n
0000067221 00000 n
0000071396 00000 n
0000075356 00000 n
0000071627 00000 n
0000075332 00000 n
0000079473 00000 n
0000075563 00000 n
0000079449 00000 n
0000160964 00000 n
0000083687 00000 n
0000079680 00000 n
0000083663 00000 n
0000088357 00000 n
0000083894 00000 n
0000088333 00000 n
0000092635 00000 n
0000088564 00000 n
0000092611 00000 n
0000096828 00000 n
0000092842 00000 n
0000096804 00000 n
0000101082 00000 n
0000097035 00000 n
0000101058 00000 n
0000105412 00000 n
0000101289 00000 n
0000105388 00000 n
0000161082 00000 n
0000109560 00000 n
0000105619 00000 n
0000109536 00000 n
0000114452 00000 n
0000109767 00000 n
0000114428 00000 n
0000118618 00000 n
0000114659 00000 n
0000118594 00000 n
0000122777 00000 n
0000118825 00000 n
0000122753 00000 n
0000127183 00000 n
0000122984 00000 n
0000127158 00000 n
0000131299 00000 n
0000127392 00000 n
0000131274 00000 n
0000161201 00000 n
0000135712 00000 n
0000131509 00000 n
0000135687 00000 n
0000139368 00000 n
0000135934 00000 n
0000139343 00000 n
0000143229 00000 n
0000139578 00000 n
0000143204 00000 n
0000146903 00000 n
0000143439 00000 n
0000146878 00000 n
0000148216 00000 n
0000147113 00000 n
0000148191 00000 n
0000148432 00000 n
0000149585 00000 n
0000151088 00000 n
0000152241 00000 n
0000153740 00000 n
0000153813 00000 n
0000155294 00000 n
0000156447 00000 n
0000157948 00000 n
0000159101 00000 n
0000161326 00000 n
0000161512 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 134
/Root 2 0 R
/Info 133 0 R
>>
startxref
161650
%%EOF
2 0 obj
<>
endobj
4 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
/F1 13 Tf 100 Tz
88.1395 -8.4 Td
1.3 Tw
0 Tc
(FOR PUBLICATION) Tj
/F1 15 Tf 100 Tz
-78.2395 -24 Td
1.5 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
43.47 -16 Td
(FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-53.37 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( F. A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(VELYN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(DWARD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( U. B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UGARIN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANDRA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( P. B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(URGESS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATRICIA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARROLL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OBERT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M. C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HAPMAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ICHAEL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( Y. G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARCIA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OBY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAVET) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AMES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( I. K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UROIWA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RANCES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M. N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ICHOLS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ONNA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALIA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(CAFF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ACK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H. S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(CAFF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LLEN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ESHIMA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HURSTON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(WIGG) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MITH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
71.652 -13.2 Td
(Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-71.652 -18 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTHONY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANG) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(., State Council) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of Hawaiian Homestead) Tj
215.07 -4.2 Td
(No. 04-15306) Tj
-215.07 -9 Td
(Associations \(SCHHA\); S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
226.734 -9 Td
1.2 Tw
(D.C. No.) Tj
-226.734 -4.2 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNCIL) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AWAIIAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMESTEAD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
199.002 -9 Td
1.2 Tw
(CV-02-00139-SOM/) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-17.382 -1.3 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATIONS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
237.33 -9 Td
(KSC) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-172.302 -4.2 Td
(Intervenors-Appellees,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
159.312 -13.8 Td
(OPINION) Tj
-141.84 -4.2 Td
(v.) Tj
-82.5 -18 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(INDA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C. L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in her official) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(capacity as Governor of the State) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of Hawaii; H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AUNANI) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(POLIONA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Chairman, and in her official) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(capacity as trustee of the Office of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Hawaiian Affairs; R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OWENA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(KANA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(in his official capacity as trustee) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ONALD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATALUNA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in his official) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(capacity as trustee of the Office of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Hawaiian Affairs; L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(INDA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ELA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RUZ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in her official capacity as) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -65.95 m 183.8 -65.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -271.1 m 186.6 -73.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -485.4 m 186.6 -288.1 l s
.9 w 0 -492.35 m 183.3 -492.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
295 -664.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1573) Tj
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
12 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(trustee of the Office of Hawaiian) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Affairs; C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LAYTON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in his) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(official capacity as trustee of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Office of Hawaiian Affairs;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLETTE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( Y. M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ACHADO) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in her) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(official capacity as trustee of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Office of Hawaiian Affairs;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HARLES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( O) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in his official) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(capacity as trustee of the Office of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Hawaiian Affairs; O) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SWALD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( K.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TENDER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in his official capacity as) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(trustee of the Office of Hawaiian) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Affairs; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( D. W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AIHEE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, IV, in) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(his official capacity as trustee of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(the Office of Hawaiian Affairs;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, 1 through 10; G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EORGINA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -1.3 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -11.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AWAMURA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in her official capacity) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(as Director of the Department of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Budget and Finance; R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(USS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AITO) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(in her official capacity as) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Comptroller and Director of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Department of Accounting and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(General Services; P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ETER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( Y) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(his official capacity as Chairman) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of the Board of Land and Natural) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Resources; S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANDRA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UNIMOTO) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(in her official capacity as Director) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of the Department of Argiculture;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IU) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in his official capacity as) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Director of the Department of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Business, Economic Development) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(and Tourism; R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ODNEY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARAGA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, in) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -7.95 m 183.8 -7.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -225.7 m 186.6 -15.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -452.6 m 186.6 -242.7 l s
.9 w 0 -459.55 m 183.3 -459.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1574) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
15 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(his official capacity as Director of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(the Department of Transportation;) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.2 Td
(Q) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UENTIN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AWANANAKOA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, member) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -7.9 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -5.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(of the Hawaiian Homes) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Commission,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
65.688 -13.2 Td
(Defendants-Appellees.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
115.932 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-158.31 -26.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(On Remand from the United States Supreme Court) Tj
69.894 -26.2 Td
(Filed February 9, 2007) Tj
-91.254 -26.2 Td
(Before: Melvin) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Brunetti, Susan) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(P.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Graber, and Jay) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Bybee,) Tj
112.05 -13.2 Td
(Circuit) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Judges.) Tj
-25.296 -26.2 Td
(Opinion by Judge Bybee) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -7.95 m 183.8 -7.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -47.5 m 186.6 -15.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -96.2 m 186.6 -64.5 l s
.9 w 0 -103.15 m 183.3 -103.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1575) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
18 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
120.996 -27.6 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-120.996 -26.2 Td
3.47 Tw
(H. William Burgess, Honolulu, Hawaii, for the plaintiffs-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(appellants. ) Tj
0 -26.2 Td
.46 Tw
(Sherry P. Broder, Honolulu, Hawaii; Girard D. Lau, Charleen) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.11 Tw
(M. Aina, Office of the Attorney General of Hawaii, Honolulu,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.95 Tw
(Hawaii; Jon M. Van Dyke, William S. Richardson School of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1 Tw
(Law, Honolulu, Hawaii; Aaron P. Avila, U.S. Department of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.5 Tw
(Justice, Washington, D.C.; Thomas A. Helper, Office of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
7.38 Tw
(U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, Hawaii, for the defendants-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(appellees.) Tj
0 -26.2 Td
1.18 Tw
(Walter R. Schoettle, Honolulu, Hawaii; Robert Klein, Hono-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.51 Tw
(lulu, Hawaii; Philip W. Miyoshi, McCorriston Miller Mukai) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.61 Tw
(MacKinnon LLP, Honolulu, Hawaii, for the intervenors-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(appellees.) Tj
0 -26.2 Td
1.45 Tw
(Le'a Malia Kanehe, Native Hawaiian LegalCorp., Honolulu,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Hawaii, for the amici curiae. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
123.666 -44.2 Td
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-123.666 -26.2 Td
(BYBEE, Circuit Judge: ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
.55 Tw
(In this case we are called on, yet again, to hear a challenge) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.33 Tw
(to state programs restricting benefits ) Tj
(to ) Tj
(native Hawaiians) Tj
( or) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -8.15 m 300 -8.15 l s
.5 w 0 -302.35 m 300 -302.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1579) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
21 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.03 Tw
0 Tc
(Hawaiians.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g., Carroll v. Nakatani) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342 F.3d 934 \(9th) Tj
0 -13 Td
.3 Tw
(Cir. 2003\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki v. Hawaii) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 314 F.3d 1091 \(9th Cir. 2002\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
.39 Tw
(Han v. U.S. Dep't of Justice) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 45 F.3d 333 \(9th Cir. 1995\) \(per) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.53 Tw
(curiam\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Price ) Tj
(v. Akaka) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 3 F.3d 1220 \(9th Cir. 1993\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Price) Tj
0 -13 Td
.53 Tw
(v. Hawaii) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 764 F.2d 623 \(9th Cir. 1985\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.94 Tw
(741 F.2d 1169 \(9th Cir. 1984\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Keaukaha-Panaewa Cmty.) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.28 Tw
(Ass'n v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 588 F.2d 1216 \(9th Cir.) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(1978\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also Rice v. Cayetano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 528 U.S. 495 \(2000\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.2 Tw
(Plaintiffs in this case are citizens of the State of Hawaii) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(who allege that various state programs preferentially treat per-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(sons of Hawaiian ancestry, in violation of the Fifth and Four-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.47 Tw
(teenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.47 Tw
(1983, and the terms of a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.12 Tw
(public land trust. Plaintiffs brought suit against the Depart-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.52 Tw
(ment of Hawaiian Home Lands \() Tj
(DHHL) Tj
(\), the Hawaiian) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(Homes Commission \() Tj
(HHC) Tj
(\), the Office of Hawaiian Affairs) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(\() Tj
(OHA) Tj
(\), various state officers, and the United States. Plain-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(tiffs claim standing to sue as taxpayers and as beneficiaries of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.72 Tw
(the public land trust. In a series of orders, the district court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(held that Plaintiffs lacked standing to raise certain claims and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.32 Tw
(that Plaintiffs' remaining claims raised a nonjusticiable politi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.45 Tw
(cal question, and dismissed the entire lawsuit. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(Lingle) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 305 F. Supp. 2d 1161 \(D. Haw. 2004\) \() Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(VI) Tj
(\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.93 Tw
(Arakaki v. Lingle) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 299 F. Supp. 2d 1129 \(D. Haw. 2003\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(\() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(V) Tj
(\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki v. Lingle) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 299 F. Supp. 2d 1114 \(D.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.33 Tw
(Haw. 2003\) \() Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(IV) Tj
(\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki v. Cayetano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 299 F.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.41 Tw
(Supp. 2d 1107 \(D. Haw. 2002\) \() Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(III) Tj
(\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.77 Tw
(Cayetano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 299 F. Supp. 2d 1090 \(D. Haw. 2002\) \() Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.13 Tw
(II\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki v. Cayetano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 198 F. Supp. 2d 1165 \(D. Haw.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.28 Tw
(2002\) \() Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(I) Tj
(\). The district court also issued three) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.52 Tw
(unpublished orders, dated December 16, 2003, January 26,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(2004, and May 5, 2004, which this opinion will address. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.4 Tw
(In a prior opinion, we affirmed in part and reversed in part.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(Arakaki v. Lingle) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 423 F.3d 954 \(9th Cir. 2005\). The Plaintiffs) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.62 Tw
(filed a petition for certiorari, which the Supreme Court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.73 Tw
(denied. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki v. Lingle) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.73 Tw
(Ct. 2861 \(2006\). On the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.1 Tw
(state's petition for certiorari, however, the Supreme Court) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1580) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
24 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
7.14 Tw
0 Tc
(granted the petition, vacated our prior judgment and) Tj
0 -13 Td
.9 Tw
(remanded for further consideration in light of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrys-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.73 Tw
(ler Corp. v. Cuno) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 547 U.S. ___, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.73 Tw
(Ct. 1854 \(2006\).) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
.03 Tw
(Lingle v. Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.03 Tw
(Ct. 2859 \(2006\). On reconsideration,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.12 Tw
(we again affirm in part and reverse in part, although on differ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(ent grounds. In the interest of clarity for all interested parties,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.46 Tw
(we are issuing a complete opinion in support of our judgment) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(following remand from the Supreme Court. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.2 Tw
(We hold that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue the federal gov-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.08 Tw
(ernment and that the district court therefore correctly dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(missed all claims to which the United States is a named party) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(or an indispensable party. However, we reverse the district) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(court's finding that Plaintiffs have demonstrated standing as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(state taxpayers to challenge those programs that are funded by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.9 Tw
(state tax revenue and for which the United States is not an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.95 Tw
(indispensable party. In light of the Supreme Court's decision) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, we now hold that Plaintiffs, as state tax-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(payers, lack standing to bring a suit claiming that the OHA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.07 Tw
(programs that are funded by state tax revenue violate the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.5 Tw
(Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(Although it is not clear that any Plaintiffs have standing in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.46 Tw
(any other capacity to challenge the OHA programs, we) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(remand to the district court for further proceedings. Finally,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(if any Plaintiffs are able to establish standing, their challenge) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(to the appropriation of tax revenue to the OHA does not raise) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.42 Tw
(a nonjusticiable political question. We therefore affirm in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(part, reverse in part, and remand. ) Tj
98.172 -26 Td
(I.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(BACKGROUND) Tj
-98.172 -26 Td
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Historical Context) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.11 Tw
(After the arrival of Captain Cook in 1778, the western) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
5.21 Tw
(world became increasingly interested in the commercial) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(potential of the Hawaiian Islands. The nineteenth century saw) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.74 Tw
(a steady rise in American and European involvement in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(islands' political and economic affairs. As the resistance of) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1581) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
27 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.95 Tw
0 Tc
(the native Hawaiian government mounted, American com-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.47 Tw
(mercial interests eventually succeeded, with the complicity of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.75 Tw
(the U.S. military, in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.75 Tw
(and establishing a provisional government under the title of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(the Republic of Hawaii. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Rice) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 528 U.S. at 500-05. ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.53 Tw
(In 1898, President McKinley signed a Joint Resolution to) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.3 Tw
(annex the Hawaiian Islands as a territory of the United States.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.51 Tw
(30 Stat. 750. This resolution, commonly referred to as the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.8 Tw
(Newlands Resolution, provided that the Republic of Hawaii) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.13 Tw
(ceded all public lands to the United States and that revenues) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.16 Tw
(from the lands were to be ) Tj
(used solely for the benefit of the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.91 Tw
(inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.37 Tw
(public purposes.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. Two years later, the Hawaiian Organic) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.7 Tw
(Act established the Territory of Hawaii and put the ceded) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
0 Tw
(lands in the control of the Territory of Hawaii ) Tj
(until otherwise) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.2 Tw
(provided for by Congress.) Tj
( Act of Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(91, 31 Stat. 159. ) Tj
0 -26.7 Td
6.18 Tw
(B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
6.18 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(The Public Land Trust and the Hawaiian Homes) Tj
23 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(Commission Act ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-11 -26.6 Td
1.9 Tw
(Shortly after the establishment of the Territory, Congress) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.42 Tw
(became concerned with the condition of the native Hawaiian) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.88 Tw
(people.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Rice) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 528 U.S. at 507. Declaring its intent to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.74 Tw
([e]stablish[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.74 Tw
(] a permanent land base for the beneficial use of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.95 Tw
(native Hawaiians,) Tj
( Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
5.81 Tw
(Commission Act, 1920. Act of July 9, 1921, ch. 42,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.5 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.5 Tw
(101\(b\)\(1\), 42 Stat. 108 \() Tj
(HHCA) Tj
(\). The HHCA set aside) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.11 Tw
(200,000 acres of lands previously ceded to the United States) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.4 Tw
(for the creation of loans and leases to benefit native Hawai-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.85 Tw
(ians. These lands were to be leased exclusively, including by) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.3 Tw
(transfer, to native Hawaiians for a term of 99 years at a nomi-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.75 Tw
(nal rate of one dollar per year. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.75 Tw
(208\(1\), \(2\) & \(5\). The) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.25 Tw
(HHCA defines ) Tj
(native Hawaiian) Tj
( as ) Tj
(any descendant of not) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.45 Tw
(less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(201\(7\). ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1582) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
31 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.53 Tw
0 Tc
(In 1959, Hawaii became the 50th State in the union. Under) Tj
-12 -13 Td
4.6 Tw
(the Hawaii Statehood Admission Act, Congress required) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.78 Tw
(Hawaii to incorporate the HHCA into its state Constitution,) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.41 Tw
(with the United States retaining authority to approve any) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.21 Tw
(changes to the eligibility requirements for the HHCA leases.) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.58 Tw
(Act of March 18, 1959, Pub. L. No. 86-3, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.58 Tw
(4, 73 Stat. 5) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.75 Tw
(\(Admission Act) Tj
(\). ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
3.7 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
3.75 Tw
(. C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
3.7 Tw
(ONST) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
3.75 Tw
(. art. XII, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.75 Tw
(1-3. In) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.73 Tw
(return, the United States granted Hawaii title to all public) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(lands within the state, save a small portion reserved for use of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.75 Tw
(the Federal Government. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.75 Tw
(5\(b\)-\(d\), 73 Stat. 5. The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(Admission Act further declared that the lands, ) Tj
(together with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(the proceeds from the sale or other disposition of any such) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(lands and the income therefrom, shall be held by [the State]) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(as a public trust for the support of the public schools, . . . the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(conditions of native Hawaiians) Tj
( and other purposes. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
( ) Tj
(5\(f\),) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(73 Stat. 6. The land granted to Hawaii included the 200,000) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(acres previously set aside under the HHCA and an additional) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(1.2 million acres. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.71 Tw
(The Hawaii Constitution expressly adopted the HHCA and) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(declared that ) Tj
(the spirit of the Hawaiian Homes Commission) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(Act looking to the continuance of the Hawaiian homes proj-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(ects for the further rehabilitation of the Hawaiian race shall be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(faithfully carried out.) Tj
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.46 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.47 Tw
(. C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.46 Tw
(ONST) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.47 Tw
(. art. XII, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.47 Tw
(2. Because the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.57 Tw
(HHCA's purposes include support of public education, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(Constitution also provides that lands granted to Hawaii under) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.6 Tw
(the Admission Act will be held in ) Tj
(public trust for native) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.63 Tw
(Hawaiians and the general public.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.63 Tw
(4; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see Arakaki v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Hawaii) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 314 F.3d 1091, 1093 \(9th Cir. 2002\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.95 Tw
(The HHCA established a Department of Hawaiian Home) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(Lands \() Tj
(DHHL) Tj
(\), to be headed by an executive board known) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(as the Hawaiian Homes Commission \() Tj
(HHC) Tj
(\). Act of July 9,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(1921, ch. 42, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.1 Tw
(202\(a\), 42 Stat. 108. By statute Hawaii created) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.58 Tw
(both the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
9 Tw
(Hawaiian Homes Commission. Together, DHHL/HHC) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.77 Tw
(administer the 200,000 acres set aside by the HHCA, and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.66 Tw
(DHHL/HHC's beneficiaries are limited to ) Tj
(native Hawai-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1583) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
34 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.57 Tw
0 Tc
(ians, as defined in the Act. The DHHL is funded in substan-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.06 Tw
(tial part by state revenue; although the record is not clear on) Tj
0 -13 Td
.9 Tw
(this point, this revenue likely derives from both tax and non-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(tax sources.) Tj
0 -26 Td
(C.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(The Office of Hawaiian Affairs ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.53 Tw
(In 1978, Hawaii amended its Constitution to establish the) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.12 Tw
(Office of Hawaiian Affairs to ) Tj
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.12 Tw
(`provide Hawaiians the right) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.41 Tw
(to determine the priorities which will effectuate the better-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(ment of their condition and welfare and promote the protec-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.61 Tw
(tion and preservation of the Hawaiian race, and . . . [to] unite) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.97 Tw
(Hawaiians as a people.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.97 Tw
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Rice) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 528 U.S. at 508 \(quoting 1) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawaii of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(1978, Committee of the Whole Rep. No. 13, p. 1018 \(1980\)\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.73 Tw
(OHA holds title to all property ) Tj
(held in trust for native) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.14 Tw
(Hawaiians and Hawaiians,) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(except) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( for the 200,000 acres) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(administered by DHHL/HHC; OHA thus controls the 1.2 mil-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.43 Tw
(lion acres ceded by the United States in the Admission Act.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.5 Tw
(The term ) Tj
(native Hawaiians) Tj
( has the same blood quantum) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(requirement as under the HHCA; by contrast, the term ) Tj
(Ha-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.08 Tw
(waiians is broader and simply refers to any persons) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(descended from inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands prior to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.47 Tw
(1778. H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
3.43 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
3.47 Tw
(. R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
3.43 Tw
(EV) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
3.47 Tw
(. S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
3.43 Tw
(TAT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
3.47 Tw
(. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.47 Tw
(10-2. OHA's statutory purposes) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(include ) Tj
([a]ssessing the policies and practices of other agen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.48 Tw
(cies impacting on native Hawaiians and Hawaiians,) Tj
( ) Tj
(con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
9.66 Tw
(ducting advocacy efforts for native Hawaiians and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(Hawaiians, ) Tj
([a]pplying for, receiving, and disbursing, grants) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.25 Tw
(and donations from all sources for native Hawaiian and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(Hawaiian programs and services,) Tj
( and ) Tj
([s]erving as a recepta-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(cle for reparations.) Tj
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EV) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TAT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(10-3\(4\)-\(6\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
6.21 Tw
(OHA administers funds received from two principal) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(sources. First, OHA receives a 20 percent share of any reve-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(nue generated by the 1.2 million acres of lands held in public) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5 Tw
(trust. H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.94 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
5 Tw
(. R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.94 Tw
(EV) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
5 Tw
(. S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.94 Tw
(TAT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
5 Tw
(. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
5 Tw
(10-13.5 \(1993\). Second, OHA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(receives revenue from the state general fund, which derives) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(from tax revenue and other, non-tax, sources. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1584) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
37 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(D.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(The Proceedings) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.67 Tw
(The Plaintiffs \(some of whom qualify as ) Tj
(Hawaiians) Tj
(\)) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.1 Tw
(allege that they are citizens of Hawaii, taxpayers of the state) Tj
0 -13 Td
0 Tw
(of Hawaii and of the United States, and beneficiaries of a pub-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.36 Tw
(lic land trust created in 1898. The Complaint alleges three) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.52 Tw
(causes of action. First, Plaintiffs allege that the various pro-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.41 Tw
(grams of the OHA and DHHL/HHC violate the Equal Protec-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.82 Tw
(tion Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the equal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(Amendment. Second, they make these same allegations under) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.4 Tw
(1983. Third, they claim that the administration of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(the OHA and the DHHL/HHC constitutes a breach of the pub-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(lic land trust. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
0 Tw
(The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims on grounds of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(standing and political question. With respect to the DHHL/) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(HHC, the court ruled that the United States was an indispens-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(able party to the lease eligibility requirements, but that Plain-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(tiffs had no standing to sue the United States. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(IV, 299) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(F. Supp. 2d at 1120-25. Because ) Tj
(any challenge to the lessee) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(requirements of the Hawaiian Home Lands lease program set) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(up by the HHCA, a state law, necessarily involves a challenge) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.53 Tw
(to the Admission Act,) Tj
( all claims against the DHHL/HHC) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(were dismissed. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1126, 1127. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.03 Tw
(The district court took a slightly different route with respect) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(to OHA. The court dismissed the breach of trust claim on the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(ground that Plaintiffs had not pleaded a breach of trust claim) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(that is cognizable under the common law of trusts. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( II,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(299 F. Supp. 2d at 1103. Finding that Plaintiffs had state tax-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.88 Tw
(payer standing to sue OHA, the court declined to dismiss) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(OHA because, unlike DHHL/HHC, ) Tj
([n]othing in the Admis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.77 Tw
(sion Act requires the creation of OHA or governs OHA's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(actions. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(IV, 299 F. Supp. 2d at 1127. The court lim-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(ited the Plaintiffs' taxpayer challenge, however, to OHA pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(grams funded from taxes, as opposed to programs funded) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(from other sources. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( II, 299 F. Supp. 2d at 1100-01;) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1585) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
40 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.15 Tw
0 Tc
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(IV, 299 F. Supp. 2d at 1122-24. In a subsequent deci-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.41 Tw
(sion, however, the district court dismissed all claims against) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.47 Tw
(OHA on the ground that they were barred by the political) Tj
0 -13 Td
.24 Tw
(question doctrine. The court observed that, although Congress) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.41 Tw
(has plenary authority to recognize Indian tribal status, it has) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.66 Tw
(given Hawaiians some, but not all, of the privileges that go) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.61 Tw
(with formal tribal status. Because resolving Plaintiffs' equal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(protection claims would require the court to determine Hawai-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.08 Tw
(ians' political status in order to determine the appropriate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(level of scrutiny, the court declined to decide Hawaiians' cur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(rent political status ) Tj
(in recognition of the continuing debate in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(Congress) Tj
( and the principle that ) Tj
(this is a political issue that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.46 Tw
(should be first decided by another branch of government.) Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(VI, 305 F. Supp. 2d at 1173. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
(Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of all their claims. ) Tj
58.644 -26 Td
(II.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(STANDARD OF REVIEW) Tj
-58.644 -26 Td
1.23 Tw
(Standing is a legal issue subject to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(de novo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( review. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bruce) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 759 F.2d 755, 758 \(9th Cir. 1985\). In ruling) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(on a F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
1.78 Tw
(ED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.8 Tw
(. R. C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
1.78 Tw
(IV) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.8 Tw
(. P. 12\(b\)\(6\) motion to dismiss for lack of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(standing, we must construe the complaint in favor of the com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(plaining party. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hong Kong Supermarket v. Kizer) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 830 F.2d) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.4 Tw
(1078, 1080-81 \(9th Cir. 1987\). As the district court noted,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(whether dismissal on political question grounds is jurisdic-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(tional or prudential in nature, and thus whether it is properly) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(classified under Rule 12\(b\)\(1\) or 12\(b\)\(6\), is unclear. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.84 Tw
(pare Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 418) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(U.S. 208, 215 \(1974\) \(presence of a political question, like) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.24 Tw
(absence of standing, deprives court of jurisdiction\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.12 Tw
(Goldwater v. Carter) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 444 U.S. 996, 1000 \(1979\) \() Tj
(the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.32 Tw
(political-question doctrine rests in part on prudential concerns) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.15 Tw
(calling for mutual respect among the three branches of Gov-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.25 Tw
(ernment\). Either way, we review the district court's dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.22 Tw
(missal ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(de novo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g., Decker v. Advantage Fund, Ltd.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.55 Tw
(362 F.3d 593, 595-96 \(9th Cir. 2004\) \(dismissal under Rule) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(12\(b\)\(6\) reviewed ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(de ) Tj
(novo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Luong v. Circuit City Stores,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1586) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
43 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.46 Tw
0 Tc
(Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 368 F.3d 1109, 1111 n.2 \(9th Cir. 2004\) \(dismissal for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12\(b\)\(1\),) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(reviewed ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(de novo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(\). ) Tj
6.456 -26 Td
(III.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(PLAINTIFFS' STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE) Tj
88.446 -13.1 Td
(DHHL/HHC LEASES) Tj
-82.902 -26 Td
4.43 Tw
(Plaintiffs claim standing to challenge the DHHL/HHC) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(leases as land trust beneficiaries, and as state taxpayers. We) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(find that neither theory confers standing to challenge the lease) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(requirements or the appropriation of state revenue in support) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(thereof. The district properly dismissed all claims against the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(DHHL/HHC and the United States. ) Tj
0 -26 Td
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Plaintiffs' Standing as Land Trust Beneficiaries ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.65 Tw
(Plaintiffs challenge the public lands trust administered by) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(DHHL/HHC because it prefers native Hawaiians in the lease) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(eligibility criteria for the 200,000 acres set aside in the HHCA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.08 Tw
(and incorporated into the Hawaii Constitution through the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(Admission Act. The Plaintiffs argue that as members of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(class of ) Tj
(native Hawaiians and general public,) Tj
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.9 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.91 Tw
(. C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.9 Tw
(ONST) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.91 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.7 Tw
(art. XII, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.7 Tw
(4, they are trust beneficiaries, and may sue the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.53 Tw
(trustee when the trustee's actions violate the law. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
4.76 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.7 Tw
(ESTATEMENT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
4.76 Tw
( \(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.7 Tw
(ECOND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
4.76 Tw
(\) ) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.7 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
4.76 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.7 Tw
(RUSTS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
4.76 Tw
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.76 Tw
(166, 214. Plaintiffs) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.45 Tw
(allege that the trusteesincluding DHHL/HHC and the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(United Stateshave enforced the provisions of the trust in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. ) Tj
11 -26 Td
(1.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The United States as Trustee ) Tj
1 -26.1 Td
3.57 Tw
(Plaintiffs argue that the trust obligations of the United) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(States arise through two acts, the Newlands Resolution and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(the Admission Act. Plaintiffs claim the trust was first estab-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.73 Tw
(lished in 1898 by the Newlands Resolution with the United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(States as trustee. Congress, according to Plaintiffs, then vio-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.26 Tw
(lated its duties as trustee by discriminating on the basis of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.57 Tw
(race when it enacted the HHCA in 1921 and again in the) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1587) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
46 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.58 Tw
0 Tc
(Admission Act when it required Hawaii to incorporate the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.1 Tw
(HHCA into its Constitution. Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.93 Tw
(that the United States became a trustee as a result of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Admission Act.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.86 Tw
(The history of the land trust does not support either of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(Plaintiffs' theories. The United States is not currently a trustee) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.45 Tw
(of the lands in question by virtue of either the Newlands Res-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.18 Tw
(olution or the Admission Act. The Newlands Resolution) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(recited that the Government of the Republic of Hawaii ceded) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(the absolute fee and ownership of all public Government, or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(Crown lands.) Tj
( Newlands Resolution, 30 Stat. 750 \(1898\). It) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(further provided that existing U.S. laws regarding public lands) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(would not apply to Hawaiian lands, but that Congress ) Tj
(shall) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(enact special laws for their management and disposition: ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.23 Tw
(vided) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, That all revenue from or proceeds of the same . . . shall) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(be used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawai-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.75 Tw
(ian Islands for educational and other public purposes.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
4.32 Tw
(Although this passage did not specifically use the word) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.62 Tw
(trust, the Attorney General of the United States subse-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(quently interpreted it ) Tj
(to subject the public lands in Hawaii to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(a special trust.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hawaii Public Lands) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 22 Op. Att'y Gen.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(574, 576 \(1899\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.67 Tw
(Assuming, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(arguendo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, that the Attorney General was right) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.78 Tw
(to construe the Newlands Resolution as establishing a trust,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(and assuming further that the United States became a trustee,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.81 Tw
(the United States' status as trustee was expressly subject to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(future revision. The Resolution specifically provides that ) Tj
(the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(United States shall enact special laws for [the] management) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.9 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.32 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The district court concluded that Plaintiffs had waived the Newlands) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
.52 Tw
(Resolution theory, and addressed only the Admission Act theory. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.1 Td
.02 Tw
(II, 299 F. Supp. 2d at 1101. Plaintiffs deny the waiver. However, this court) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.29 Tw
(can affirm the district court's dismissal on any ground supported by the) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.23 Tw
(record, even if the district court did not rely on the ground. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g., Livid) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.55 Tw
(Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( 416 F.3d 940, 950 \(9th Cir.) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.03 Tw
(2005\). In the interest of being thorough, we therefore address both theo-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(ries. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -399.55 m 300 -399.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1588) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
51 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.46 Tw
0 Tc
(and disposition) Tj
( of public lands. The Attorney General con-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.5 Tw
(strued this provision as ) Tj
(vest[ing] in Congress the exclusive) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.36 Tw
(right, by special enactment, to provide for the disposition of) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.07 Tw
(public lands in Hawaii.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The Newlands Resolution thus) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.47 Tw
(contemplated that Congress would enact subsequent rules to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(govern the ceded lands. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
3.36 Tw
([1]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Congress enacted such rules in the HHCA and the) Tj
-12 -13 Td
5.7 Tw
(Admission Act. Any trust obligation the United States) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.33 Tw
(assumed in the Newlands Resolution for the lands at issue) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.58 Tw
(here was extinguished by Congress when it created the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(DHHL/HHC in the HHCA and granted it control of defined) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(available lands.) Tj
( Act of July 9, 1921, ch. 42, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.8 Tw
(202, 204,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.15 Tw
(and 207; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.15 Tw
(204\(a\) \() Tj
(Upon the passage of this Act, all) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(available lands shall immediately assume the status of Hawai-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(ian home lands and be under the control of the department to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(be used and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(this Act.) Tj
(\). Any lingering doubt over the United States' role) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(as trustee was eliminated entirely in the Admission Act when) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(the United States ) Tj
(grant[ed] to the State of Hawaii, effective) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(upon its admission in the Union, the United States' title to all) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(the public lands and other public property, and to all lands) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.74 Tw
(defined as `available lands' by section 203 of the Hawaiian) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(Homes Commission Act . . . title which is held by the United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.86 Tw
(States immediately prior to its admission into the Union.) Tj
() Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Pub. L. No. 86-3, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(5\(b\), 73 Stat. 4. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.16 Tw
([2]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Our discussion here also resolves Plaintiffs' claim that) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(the Admission Act established the United States' obligations) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(as a trustee. The Admission Act unambiguously requires that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(land be held in public trust, but by the State of Hawaii, not the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(United States. Nothing in the Admission Act suggests that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(United States would serve as a co-trustee with the State. Nor) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(does the fact that the United States must consent to changes) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(in the qualifications of lessees under the trust make the United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(States a co-trustee. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Pub. L. No. 86-3, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.3 Tw
(4, 73 Stat. 4. Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(gress might have made the United States a co-trustee; instead) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.81 Tw
(it reserved to the United States the right to bring suit for) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1589) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
54 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.33 Tw
0 Tc
(breach of trust, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.33 Tw
(5\(f\), a provision at odds with the sugges-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.6 Tw
(tion that the United States remains a trustee. We conclude, as) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.08 Tw
(we noted in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Keaukaha-Penaewa Cmty. Ass'n v. Hawaiian) Tj
0 -13 Td
0 Tw
(Homes Comm'n) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 588 F.2d 1216, 1224 n.7 \(9th Cir. 1978\), that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
([t]he United States has only a somewhat tangential supervi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(sory role of the Admission Act, rather than the role of trust-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(ee. ) Tj
11 -26 Td
(2.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The United States as an Indispensable Party ) Tj
1 -26 Td
2.16 Tw
(Although the United States cannot be sued on Plaintiffs') Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(trust beneficiary theory, Plaintiffs nevertheless argue that they) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.9 Tw
(may at least sue the state defendants on the same theory.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.87 Tw
(Plaintiffs point to several cases in which we have held that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(native Hawaiians, as trust beneficiaries, could bring suit under) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.51 Tw
(1983 against the State to enforce the terms of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.93 Tw
(trust. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(E.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Price v. Akaka) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 928 F.2d 824 \(9th Cir. 1990\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
8.72 Tw
(Keaukaha-Panaewa Cmty. Ass'n ) Tj
(v. Hawaiian Homes) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(Comm'n) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 739 F.2d 1467 \(9th Cir. 1984\); s) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(ee also Price v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.44 Tw
(Akaka) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 3 F.3d 1220, 1223-25 \(9th Cir. 1993\). Those cases) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(involved claims that the state was improperly administering) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(the trust and sought to enforce the trust's terms. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.96 Tw
(We believe that this argument is disposed of easily. Those) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.48 Tw
(cases differ from the present challenge in a fundamental way:) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(although those previous ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.62 Tw
(1983 cases have involved suits to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(enforce the express terms of the trust, this suit, by contrast,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(asks the court to prohibit the enforcement of a trust provision.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(That is, Plaintiffs now raise a ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.23 Tw
(1983 claim that is unique in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(that it does not seek to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(enforce) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the substantive terms of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(trust, but instead challenges at least one of those terms as con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(stitutionally ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(unenforceable) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
3.07 Tw
([3]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We have recently held that in any challenge to the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(enforceability of the lease eligibility requirements, the United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(States is an indispensable party. In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll v. Nakatani) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(F.3d 934 \(9th Cir. 2003\), ) Tj
(a non-native Hawaiian citizen chal-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(lenged the homestead lease program administered by DHHL/) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1590) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
57 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.33 Tw
0 Tc
(HHC. The plaintiff sued the relevant state actors, but failed to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.27 Tw
(sue the United States. We held that Section 4 of the Admis-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.85 Tw
(sions Act ) Tj
(expressly reserves to the United States that no) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.07 Tw
(changes in the qualifications of the lessees may be made with-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.26 Tw
(out its consent.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342 F.3d at 944. We reasoned that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.38 Tw
(because the qualifications for the DHHL/HHC leases cannot) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(be modified without the United States' approval, the United) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.33 Tw
(States is an indispensable party to any lawsuit challenging the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.87 Tw
(DHHL/HHC leases, and the Plaintiff's failure to sue the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.6 Tw
(United States meant that his injury was not redressable. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(944. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.5 Td
1.75 Tw
([4]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Here, unlike in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, Plaintiffs properly named the) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.25 Tw
(United States as a party. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s logic nonetheless applies.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.77 Tw
(Plaintiffs lack standing to sue the United States, but the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.27 Tw
(United States is an indispensable party to any challenge to the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
5.86 Tw
(lease eligibility requirements. Plaintiffs therefore cannot) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.67 Tw
(maintain their challenge to the lease eligibility requirements) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.75 Tw
(against the State. Accordingly, the district court properly dis-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.91 Tw
(missed the Plaintiffs' trust beneficiary claim against the state) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(defendants. ) Tj
0 -26.4 Td
(B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Plaintiffs' Standing As State Taxpayers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
2.21 Tw
(Plaintiffs also challenge the DHHL/HHC lease eligibility) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.88 Tw
(programs in their capacity as state taxpayers. The question is) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1 Tw
(whether our decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bars Plaintiffs' equal protec-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.03 Tw
(tion challenge in their capacity as taxpayers, just as it barred) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.25 Tw
(Plaintiffs' suit in their capacity as trust beneficiaries. In par-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.28 Tw
(ticular, we must decide whether Plaintiffs have standing to) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.26 Tw
(challenge Hawaii's spending of tax revenues on the lease pro-) Tj
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(gram.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( This is a more complicated question. ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.63 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Plaintiffs do not limit their challenge to the expenditure of state tax) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.67 Tw
(revenues; instead, they challenge ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(all) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( state spending on the lease program,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.81 Tw
(whether funded by taxes, bonds, the proceeds of a settlement, or other) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.07 Tw
(non-tax revenues. The district court held that, if Plaintiffs could bring their) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.08 Tw
(equal protection claims against DHHL/HHC based on their taxpayer status) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -432.85 m 300 -432.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1591) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
60 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
1.12 Tw
0 Tc
(The standing doctrine, like other Article III doctrines con-) Tj
-12 -13.6 Td
.87 Tw
(cerning justiciability, ensures that a plaintiff's claims arise in) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.48 Tw
(a ) Tj
(concrete factual context) Tj
( appropriate to judicial resolution.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.6 Td
1.45 Tw
(Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United For Separation) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.1 Tw
(of Church & State, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 454 U.S. 464, 472 \(1982\). Standing) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.13 Tw
(ensures that, no matter the academic merits of the claim, the) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.26 Tw
(suit has been brought by a proper party. The ) Tj
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.26 Tw
(`irreducible) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.47 Tw
(constitutional minimum of standing') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.47 Tw
( requires that a plaintiff) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.9 Tw
(allege that he has suffered concrete injury, that there is a) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2 Tw
(causal connection between his injury and the conduct com-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.81 Tw
(plained of, and that the injury will likely be redressed by a) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.55 Tw
(favorable decision. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Hays) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 515 U.S. 737, 742-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.44 Tw
(43 \(1995\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 504 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(555, 560-61 \(1992\)\). ) Tj
12 -26.9 Td
1 Tw
(Plaintiffs have alleged that Hawaii has supported the lease) Tj
-12 -13.6 Td
1.63 Tw
(program through tax revenues, a point that Hawaii does not) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.7 Tw
(dispute. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(II, 299 F. Supp. 2d at 1098. Hawaii's taxing) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.47 Tw
(and spending in support of the lease program is not mandated) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.37 Tw
(by the Admission Act or any other federal law. The Admis-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.92 Tw
(sion Act requires Hawaii to adopt the HHCA and forbids) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.41 Tw
(Hawaii to change the lease eligibility requirement without the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.58 Tw
(consent of the United States; but neither the Admission Act) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.75 Tw
(nor the HHCA, as incorporated by the Hawaii Constitution,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.3 Tw
(mandates the expenditure of state funds, much less the expen-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.69 Tw
(diture of state tax revenues. Pub. L. No. 86-3, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.69 Tw
(4, 73 Stat. 4.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.63 Tw
(Section 5\(f\) of the Admission Act does provide that proceeds) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.66 Tw
(from the sale or other disposition of the lands shall be paid) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.5 Td
.71 Tw
(at all, they could challenge only those avenues of state funding that actu-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.83 Tw
(ally derived from taxes, rather than from other sources. Because we con-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.33 Tw
(clude, like the district court, that ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( precludes Plaintiffs' challenge to) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.49 Tw
(Hawaii's spending on the lease program regardless of the source of the) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.66 Tw
(state's funds, we need not decide here whether the district court correctly) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.2 Tw
(limited the scope of Plaintiffs' state taxpayer challenges. We limit our dis-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.28 Tw
(cussion to Plaintiffs' challenge to Hawaii's spending of tax revenues on) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.43 Tw
(the lease program and address the general question regarding the scope of) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1 Tw
(standing as a state taxpayer in Part IV.A.3, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(infra) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -386.25 m 300 -386.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1592) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
63 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.25 Tw
0 Tc
(into the trust for the identified purposes, but nothing suggests,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.84 Tw
(much less requires, that the State of Hawaii expend tax reve-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.18 Tw
(nues to support the lease program. Any tax revenues Hawaii) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.71 Tw
(has appropriated to DHHL/HHC, then, resulted from deci-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(sions by the Hawaii Legislature. ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.95 Tw
(Plaintiffs' taxpayer-based claims might be construed as a) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
2.42 Tw
(limited challenge to the lease program: Plaintiffs challenge) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.5 Tw
(the lease program to the extent that Hawaii hasindependent) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.61 Tw
(of any federal obligation, including the Admission Act) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.11 Tw
(engaged in taxing and spending in support of the DHHL/HHC) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.66 Tw
(program. Under this theory, unlike their trust beneficiary the-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.61 Tw
(ory, Plaintiffs would not challenge the lease eligibility) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.14 Tw
(requirements directly, nor would they implicate any substan-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.23 Tw
(tial rights belonging to the United States. Thus, Plaintiffs) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.5 Tw
(might argue, even if they cannot seek to enjoin the native) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.37 Tw
(Hawaiians-only rule directly, they can seek to enjoin further) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.22 Tw
(state funding of a provision that allegedly violates the Equal) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.6 Tw
(Protection Clause. Plaintiffs' remedy, presumably, would be) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.25 Tw
(an injunction against spending state tax revenues, but not an) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(order directing changes in the lease criteria. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.6 Td
1.75 Tw
([5]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Plaintiffs' theory, though game, ultimately fails under) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13.4 Td
.28 Tw
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. The only ground Plaintiffs have alleged for enjoining) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.8 Tw
(the state from spending is that the spending is for purposes) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause. Any remedy that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.83 Tw
(Plaintiffs seekfor example, an injunction against expendi-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.71 Tw
(ture of tax revenues for the lease programdemands that the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.75 Tw
(district court decide whether the lease eligibility criteria are) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.78 Tw
(constitutional. The lease criteria are found in the HHCA) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.55 Tw
(which is adopted by Article XII of the Hawaii Constitution.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.67 Tw
(We held in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, however, that ) Tj
(Article XII of the Hawai-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(ian Constitution cannot be declared unconstitutional without) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.14 Tw
(holding [Section 4] of the Admissions Act unconstitutional.) Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
1.03 Tw
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342 F.3d at 944. Our decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( effectively) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.93 Tw
(holds that any challenge to Article XII is a challenge to Sec-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.9 Tw
(tion 4 of the Admission Act, and no challenge to the Admis-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1593) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
66 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.92 Tw
0 Tc
(sion Act may proceed without the presence of the United) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(States as a defendant. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -27.4 Td
.23 Tw
([6]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( As state taxpayers, Plaintiffs have no basis for suing the) Tj
-12 -13.9 Td
2.53 Tw
(United States. They claim no status that would distinguish) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.2 Tw
(them from any number of other persons who also do not qual-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.1 Tw
(ify for the Hawaiian Home Lands leases. The Court has ) Tj
(re-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.81 Tw
(peatedly refused to recognize a generalized grievance against) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.57 Tw
(allegedly illegal government conduct as sufficient for stand-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1 Tw
(ing. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hays) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 515 U.S. 743. Moreover, ) Tj
([t]he rule against gen-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.88 Tw
(eralized grievances applies with as much force in the equal) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.4 Tw
(protection context as in any other.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.; see Allen v. Wright) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.53 Tw
(468 U.S. 737, 751 \(1984\). Federal taxpayer standing which,) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.73 Tw
(notably, Plaintiffs do not assert, is simply one instance of the) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.25 Tw
(assertion of a generalized grievance. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Frothingham v. Mel-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.4 Tw
(lon) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 262 U.S. 447, 487-88 \(1923\) \() Tj
(The administration of any) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.28 Tw
(statute, likely to produce additional taxation to be imposed) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.7 Tw
(upon a vast number of taxpayers, the extent of whose several) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.87 Tw
(liability is indefinite and constantly changing, is essentially a) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(matter of public and not of individual concern.) Tj
(\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -27.4 Td
.47 Tw
([7]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We hold that Plaintiffs cannot avoid the implications of) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13.8 Td
1.51 Tw
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( by limiting their claims to state spending in support) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.14 Tw
(of the lease program and then alleging their state taxpayer sta-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.3 Tw
(tus. Even if Plaintiffs were to have standing as state taxpayers) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.47 Tw
(a possibility we address in Part IV and hold is foreclosed) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.55 Tw
(by the Supreme Court's decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(that) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.41 Tw
(status cannot supply standing against the United States. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See,) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.37 Tw
(e.g., ) Tj
(Frothingham) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 262 U.S. at 486-87 \(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Crampton v.) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.44 Tw
(Zabriskie) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 101 U.S. 601, 609 \(1880\)\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( W. Mining Council v.) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.55 Tw
(Watt) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 643 F.2d 618, 631 \(9th Cir. 1981\)) Tj
(. Accordingly, we) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.28 Tw
(conclude that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue the United States,) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.44 Tw
(and that the United States remains an indispensable party to) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.28 Tw
(any challenge to the DHHL/HHC lease eligibility criteria. We) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.66 Tw
(affirm the district court's dismissal of all claims against the) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(United States and DHHL/HHC. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1594) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
70 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
19.884 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(IV.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(PLAINTIFFS' STANDING TO CHALLENGE) Tj
76.68 -13 Td
(OHA'S PROGRAMS) Tj
-84.564 -26 Td
4.08 Tw
(As with DHHL/HHC, Plaintiffs allege two theories of) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.1 Tw
(standing to challenge OHA: they challenge the appropriation) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.57 Tw
(of state tax revenue based on their status as state taxpayers,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.55 Tw
(and they challenge the appropriation of trust revenue to OHA) Tj
0 -13 Td
.74 Tw
(based on their alleged status as trust beneficiaries. Relying in) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.47 Tw
(large measure on our decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 741) Tj
0 -13 Td
.03 Tw
(F.2d 1169 \(9th Cir. 1984\), the district court held that Plaintiffs) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(had standing to sue OHA as state taxpayers. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki II) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 299) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(F. Supp. 2d at 1094-98. The court further held, however, that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge state funding of OHA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(that did not originate in taxes, specifically, any revenue that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(OHA received from lease rentals, settlements, or state bonds.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.97 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1100-01. With respect to the trust revenue claim, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.03 Tw
(district court dismissed the breach of trust claim on the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(ground that Plaintiffs had not pleaded a trust claim that was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(cognizable under the common law of trusts. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1103. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.88 Tw
(OHA contends that the district court must be reversed in) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.48 Tw
(light of) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.48 Tw
(Ct. 1854) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.12 Tw
(\(2006\), and because the United States is an indispensable) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.7 Tw
(party under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. Plaintiffs allege that the district court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.94 Tw
(erred by restricting the scope of their challenge to OHA pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.04 Tw
(grams directly funded by taxes. We address each of these con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
8.71 Tw
(tentions in turn. We conclude that) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(effectively overrules ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, and ) Tj
(Plaintiffs, accordingly, do) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(not have standing as state taxpayers to challenge the appropri-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(ation of state revenue to OHA. We need not reach the issue) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(of whether or not the United States is an indispensable party) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, nor need we discuss whether or not the district) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.38 Tw
(court properly limited the scope of Plaintiffs' challenge.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.1 Tw
(Finally, we conclude, as we did in the prior section, that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.08 Tw
(Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their trust beneficiary theory of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.38 Tw
(standing because the United States remains an indispensable) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.23 Tw
(party to a suit challenging the trust, and Plaintiffs have no) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(standing to sue the United States. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1595) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
73 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Plaintiffs' State Taxpayer Standing ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
11 -26 Td
(1.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The Vitality of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
1 -26 Td
.74 Tw
([8]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, residents of Hawaii and a taxpayers' group) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.7 Tw
(brought suit under 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.7 Tw
(1983 for damages and injunc-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.55 Tw
(tive relief to challenge programs administered by OHA to the) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.24 Tw
(extent those programs favored ) Tj
(Hawaiians.) Tj
( 741 F.2d at) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.5 Tw
(1172. We held that at least some of the individual plaintiffs) Tj
0 -13 Td
.07 Tw
(had standing to seek an injunction prohibiting the ) Tj
(appropriat-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(ing, transferring, and spending) Tj
( of taxpayers' money from the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.46 Tw
(state treasury's general fund. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1180. The plaintiffs) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(alleged that they had ) Tj
(been burdened with the necessity to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(provide more taxes to support [a class composed of Hawai-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.7 Tw
(ians] and that this was sufficient to sustain a ) Tj
(good-faith) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(pocketbook action set forth in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Doremus) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( [) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(v. Board of Educa-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.5 Tw
(tion) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342 U.S. 429, 434 \(1952\)].) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(internal quotations) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.66 Tw
(omitted\). In our original opinion, we held that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(remained the law of the circuit, and that Justice Kennedy's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(opinion in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(ASARCO v. Kadish) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 490 U.S. 605 \(1989\), while) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(persuasive, did not receive the requisite five votes to overrule) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 423 F.3d at 967-69. Since we issued) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(our original opinion, the Supreme Court decided ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Daimler-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.28 Tw
(Chrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.28 Tw
(Ct. 1854, which now effectively overrules) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.54 Tw
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1864 & n.4 \(noting that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoo-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(huli ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(were inconsistent with the five circuits to have decided) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(this issue and agreeing with those circuits\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.66 Tw
(In order to satisfy the case or controversy requirement of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(Article III, a plaintiff must demonstrate an injury in fact, a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(causal relationship between the injury and the conduct com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(plained of, and redressability. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lujan) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 504 U.S. at 560. In tax-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.14 Tw
(payer suits, these requirements are particularly difficult to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(satisfy. The Court has hesitated to recognize federal taxpayer) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.04 Tw
(standing because an injunction prohibiting spending on any) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(given program may only remotely affect the parties' tax bill) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.43 Tw
(and redress the alleged injury. As the Court wrote in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Froth-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(ingham v. Mellon) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, a federal taxpayer's ) Tj
(interest in the moneys) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1596) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
76 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.86 Tw
0 Tc
(of the Treasury . . . is shared with millions of others . . . and) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.5 Tw
(the effect upon future taxation, of any payment out of the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.63 Tw
(funds, is so remote, fluctuating and uncertain, that no basis is) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(afforded for [judicial review].) Tj
( 262 U.S. at 487. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.8 Tw
(The Court re-articulated this view in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, in) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.73 Tw
(which the plaintiffs alleged that a state tax credit violated the) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.57 Tw
(Commerce Clause. Plaintiffs claimed standing by virtue of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(their status as Ohio taxpayers, alleging that the franchise tax) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(credit provided to DaimlerChrysler ) Tj
(depletes the funds of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.06 Tw
(State of Ohio to which the Plaintiffs contribute through their) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(tax payments and thus diminishes the total funds available for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(lawful uses and imposes disproportionate burdens on them.) Tj
() Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.82 Tw
(126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.82 Tw
(Ct. at 1862 \(internal quotations and brackets omitted\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
.11 Tw
(The Court held that plaintiffs did not have standing because) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(their injury as taxpayers was not ) Tj
(concrete and particularized) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.26 Tw
(but instead a grievance the taxpayer suffers in some indefinite) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.5 Tw
(way in common with people generally.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. \(citation and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(internal quotations omitted\). The injury was ) Tj
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(`conjectural or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(hypothetical' in that it depends on how legislators respond to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(a reduction in revenue, if that is the consequence of the cred-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(it. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
([E]stablishing redressability,) Tj
( the Court held, ) Tj
(re-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.04 Tw
(quires speculating that abolishing the challenged credit will) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(redound to the benefit of the taxpayer because legislators will) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(pass along the supposed increased revenue in the form of tax) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(reductions.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id. ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(at 1863. According to the Court, the limita-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(tions on standing in federal taxpayer cases ) Tj
(applied with undi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(minished force to state taxpayers.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
4 Tw
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( plainly undermines ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s standing) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(principles. Under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, plaintiffs had to meet a three-part) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.3 Tw
(test for state taxpayer standing: \(1\) taxpayer status, \(2\) the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(funds in question were appropriated from the state's general) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(funds, and \(3\) the state was spending the funds for an unlaw-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(ful purpose. 741 F.2d at 1180. We did not require that the tax-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(payer prove that his tax burden would be lightened by the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(cancellation of the challenged expenditure. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See also Cammack) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1597) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
79 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.56 Tw
0 Tc
(v. Waihee) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 932 F.2d 765, 769 \(9th Cir. 1991\) \(noting that) Tj
0 -13 Td
.02 Tw
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hoohuli) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the leading case on this issue in the circuit, does not) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.34 Tw
(require that the taxpayer prove that her tax burden will be) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(lightened by elimination of the questioned expenditure) Tj
(\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
2.45 Tw
([9]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
2.45 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, by contrast, requires that state tax-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
5.14 Tw
(payers establish a particularized, concrete injury that is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(redressable by the court's judgment. As the Supreme Court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(observed, the Plaintiffs' alleged injury is speculative if redress) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(ultimately depends on how the legislature responds to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(court's judgment. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2 Tw
(Ct. at 1862-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.52 Tw
(63. But the ) Tj
([f]ederal courts may not assume a particulate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(exercise of . . . state fiscal discretion in establishing standing.) Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. at 1864. The Court concluded that ) Tj
(state taxpayers have no) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(standing under Article III to challenge state tax or spending) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.73 Tw
(decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(1864 \(footnotes omitted\). ) Tj
11 -26 Td
(2.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Application of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
1 -26 Td
1.08 Tw
(Applying the reasoning of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( to the facts of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(the case at hand, we conclude that Plaintiffs do not have) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(standing as state taxpayers to challenge the appropriation of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(state revenue to OHA. Plaintiffs argue that they meet the test) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(for standing under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( because \(1\) their injury) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(is concrete and particularized, \(2\) the depletion of the state) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(treasury is actual and ongoing, and \(3\) the injury they suffer) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.2 Tw
(is redressable through declaratory and injunctive relief. We) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(address each contention in turn. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
5.61 Tw
([10]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( First, Plaintiffs maintain that because they ) Tj
(are) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(required to pay taxes to support racial discrimination against) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.37 Tw
(themselves,) Tj
( they suffer a particularized injury that ) Tj
(is not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(shared by people in general or by Hawaii state taxpayers gen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(erally, but only by [taxpayers] . . . who lack the favored) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
([native-Hawaiian] ancestry) Tj
( and benefit from OHA programs.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(But Plaintiffs do not allege that they have suffered any harm) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.27 Tw
(apart from the fact that they are taxpayers and do not like) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1598) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
82 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.9 Tw
0 Tc
(OHA's programs. Plaintiffs' argument, taken to its logical) Tj
0 -13 Td
.95 Tw
(conclusion, would significantly expand state taxpayer Article) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.07 Tw
(III standing by allowing a taxpayer to challenge any govern-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.7 Tw
(mental expenditure he does not like and for which he has not) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.1 Tw
(applied: Expenditures from the common fisc for veteran's) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.33 Tw
(benefits could be challenged by any taxpayer who had not) Tj
0 -13 Td
.03 Tw
(served in the military; welfare benefits could be challenged by) Tj
0 -13 Td
.42 Tw
(any individual not on welfare; educational expenditures could) Tj
0 -13 Td
.02 Tw
(be invalidated by a suit brought by an individual who does not) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.78 Tw
(have children in the public school system. Under Plaintiffs') Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(theory, even the Ohio taxpayers in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( could) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.27 Tw
(argue that while all Ohio taxpayers bore the burden of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.78 Tw
(depletion of funds from the fisc, taxpayers who were) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(employed by DaimlerChrysler received a benefit in the form) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.74 Tw
(of a paycheck and thus a taxpaying non-employee suffers a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(particularized injury. We think that the Court's reasoning in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( extends to such creative arguments. As the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.9 Tw
(Court noted, conferring standing on state taxpayers ) Tj
(simply) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(because their tax burden gives them an interest in the state) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(treasury would interpose the federal courts as virtually contin-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.4 Tw
(uing monitors of the wisdom and soundness of state fiscal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(administration, contrary to the more modest role Article III) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(envisions for federal courts.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.42 Tw
(Ct. at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(1864 \(internal quotations omitted\). We decline to play such a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(role and accordingly reject Plaintiffs' contention that they suf-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(fer a particularized injury. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.25 Tw
([11]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Second, Plaintiffs assert the injury they suffer is ) Tj
(ac-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(tual, imminent and ongoing) Tj
( as the State Legislature contin-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.74 Tw
(ues to appropriate sums from the General Fund for OHA.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(They contrast this with the Supreme Court holding in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Daim-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(lerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, which they characterize as involving a tax rebate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(that was a ) Tj
(conjectural) Tj
( depletion of the state treasury. How-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(ever, the plaintifs misapprehend what we look to when deter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(mining whether the injury is ) Tj
(conjectural or hypothetical. As) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(the Supreme Court noted, a plaintiff's injury is ) Tj
(conjectural) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.42 Tw
(or hypothetical) Tj
( when it ) Tj
(depends on how legislators) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.46 Tw
(respond to a change in revenue. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.46 Tw
(Ct.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1599) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
85 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.23 Tw
0 Tc
(at 1862. Plaintiffs here overlook the fact that whether or not) Tj
0 -13 Td
.63 Tw
(their injury is redressable is entirely speculative. It is not cer-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.11 Tw
(tain that even if all funding for OHA were terminated, that the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.06 Tw
(Legislature would pass the savings on to the Plaintiffs in the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.51 Tw
(form of tax breaks or refrain from spending the funds on pro-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.08 Tw
(grams benefitting yet another subgroup of the Hawaiian popu-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.96 Tw
(lation to which Plaintiffs do not belong. The flow of funds) Tj
0 -13 Td
.07 Tw
(from the treasury to support OHA is actual and concrete; what) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.7 Tw
(the Legislature would do with those funds absent OHA is) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(speculative. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.53 Tw
([12]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Third, Plaintiffs assert that their injury is redressable) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(through declaratory or injunctive relief. For the reasons stated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.58 Tw
(above, any benefit that would accrue to Plaintiffs from an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(injunction or declaratory judgement is speculative. Plaintiffs) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.32 Tw
(argue that the Supreme Court has allowed individuals who) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(can allege a distinct and palpable injury to themselves to sue) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(and invoke the public interest even if the injury is shared by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(a large class of other potential litigants. However, these cases) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(are readily distinguishable and involved core functions of our) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(democracy, such as voting, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see Baker v. Carr) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 369 U.S. 186) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.94 Tw
(\(1962\) \(involving a justiciable question of voting district) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(apportionment\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 383) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(U.S. 663 \(1966\) \(striking down a poll tax\), or issues of eco-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(nomic liberty outside the taxation context, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(McGowan v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.21 Tw
(Maryland) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 366 U.S. 420 \(1961\) \(involving harm from eco-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(nomic loss and fines from Sunday Closing Laws\). The Court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(has consistently denied both federal and state taxpayers stand-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(ing under Article III to object to a particular expenditure of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.96 Tw
(funds simply because they are taxpayers. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Valley) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(Forge) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 454 U.S. 464 \(denying standing to taxpayers to chal-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.91 Tw
(lenge conveyance of government land to a private religious) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(college\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reservists Comm.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 418 U.S. 208 \(denying taxpayers) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.67 Tw
(standing to challenge members of Congress' membership in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(armed forces reserve units\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Richardson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 418) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(U.S. 166 \(1974\) \(denying taxpayer standing to force publica-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(tion of the receipts and expenditures of the CIA\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Doremus v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(Bd. of Educ.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342 U.S. 429 \(1952\) \(holding that the rationales) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1600) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
89 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.75 Tw
0 Tc
(for rejecting federal taxpayer standing apply with equal force) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
0 Tw
(to state taxpayer suits\)) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(; Ala. Power Co. v. Ickes) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 302 U.S. 464,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.53 Tw
(478 \(1938\) \(holding that ) Tj
(the interest of a taxpayer in the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.96 Tw
(moneys of the federal treasury furnishes no basis) Tj
( to argue) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.77 Tw
(that a federal agency's practices are unconstitutional\). The) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.65 Tw
(Court has allowed some Establishment Clause challenges to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.13 Tw
(federal spending to go forward, but this is a narrow exception,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.03 Tw
(not the rule. The Court has declined to extend this exception) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.52 Tw
(to other areas. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.52 Tw
(Ct. at 1864-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.51 Tw
(65; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bowen v. Kendrick) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 487 U.S. 589, 618 \(1988\) \() Tj
(Although) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.82 Tw
(we have considered the problem of standing and Article III) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.08 Tw
(limitations on federal jurisdiction many times since [) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Flast) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(],) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1 Tw
(we have consistently adhered to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Flast) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and the narrow excep-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.11 Tw
(tion it created to the general rule against taxpayer standing) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.89 Tw
(. . . .\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Flast v. Cohen) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 392 U.S. 83 \(1968\) \(creating an) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.1 Tw
(exception for Establishment Clause challenges to the general) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(standing bar for taxpayer suits\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.7 Td
1.9 Tw
([13]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In sum, we hold that these ) Tj
(state taxpayers have no) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(standing under Article III to challenge [Hawaii] state tax or) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.28 Tw
(spending decision simply by virtue of their status as taxpay-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
5.57 Tw
(ers. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DaimlerChrysler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
5.57 Tw
(Ct. at 1864. Although it) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.45 Tw
(appears to us that there are no plaintiffs who have standing to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2 Tw
(challenge the OHA funding, we are unwilling to make that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.41 Tw
(final judgment on this record before us. Accordingly, we) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(remand to the district court for further proceedings. ) Tj
11 -26.7 Td
(3.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The United States as an Indispensable Party ) Tj
1 -26.6 Td
.87 Tw
(OHA argues that even if Plaintiffs have taxpayer standing,) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.55 Tw
(under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the United States is also an indispensable party) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.52 Tw
(to any equal protection challenge to its programs. The district) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.58 Tw
(court rejected the argument on the ground that DHHL/HHC) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2 Tw
(and OHA have distinct origins. In contrast to DHHL/HHC,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.18 Tw
([n]othing in the Admission Act requires the creation of OHA) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(or governs OHA's actions.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(IV, 299 F. Supp. 2d at) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(1127. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1601) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
92 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
2.63 Tw
0 Tc
([14]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The district court is correct with respect to OHA's) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.46 Tw
(expenditure of tax revenue. OHA was created nearly twenty) Tj
0 -13 Td
.85 Tw
(years after Hawaii's admission to the union. In 1978, Hawaii) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.82 Tw
(amended its Constitution to add Sections 5 and 6creating) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.47 Tw
(OHA and defining its dutiesto Article XII. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.42 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
4.47 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.48 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.47 Tw
(ONST) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.48 Tw
(. art. XII, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.48 Tw
(5-6. The Constitution does not provide for) Tj
0 -13 Td
.64 Tw
(OHA's funding, which is provided by statute. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.63 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.64 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.23 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.18 Tw
(EV) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
4.23 Tw
(. S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
4.18 Tw
(TAT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
4.23 Tw
(. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.23 Tw
(10-3\(1\) \() Tj
(A pro rata portion of all funds) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.6 Tw
(derived from the public land trust shall be funded in an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.61 Tw
(amount to be determined by the legislature.) Tj
(\), 10-13.5) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(\(Twenty per cent of all funds derived from the public land) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(trust . . . shall be expended by [OHA] . . . .) Tj
(\). Unlike the lease) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.94 Tw
(eligibility requirement imposed by the HHCA and adminis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(tered by DHHL/HHC, the United States has no right to con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.13 Tw
(sent or withhold consent to the creation of OHA or its) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(administration of programs for native Hawaiians or Hawai-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.95 Tw
(ians. Because Plaintiffs can prevail against OHA ) Tj
(without) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(holding [Section 4] of the Admissions Act unconstitutional,) Tj
() Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(nothing ) Tj
(requires the participation of . . . the United States.) Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.36 Tw
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342 F.3d at 944. We decline to extend ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carroll) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(claims against OHA concerning tax revenue. ) Tj
0 -26 Td
(B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Plaintiffs' Trust Beneficiary Standing) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.83 Tw
([15]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Plaintiffs allege, as an independent basis for standing,) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(that as trust beneficiaries they may sue OHA because OHA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(receives trust revenues. Although the United States is not an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(indispensable party to a challenge to the appropriation of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(tax) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(revenue, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Part IV.A.3, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(supra) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, this is not true with respect) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(to OHA's receipt of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(trust) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( revenue. We have previously held) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.88 Tw
(that the expenditure of trust revenue is governed by the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(Admission Act. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Price v. Akaka) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 928 F.2d 824, 827 \(9th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.53 Tw
(1990\). Any challenge to the expenditure of trust revenue) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(brought by alleged trust beneficiaries must challenge the sub-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(stantive terms of the trust, which are found in the Admission) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(Act. For the reasons we explained in Part III.A.2, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(supra, ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(United States is an indispensable party to any challenge to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.51 Tw
(Admission Act. Accordingly, although the United States is) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1602) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
95 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
4.33 Tw
0 Tc
(not an indispensable party with respect to challenges to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.71 Tw
(OHA's expenditure of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(tax) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( revenue, it remains indispensable) Tj
0 -13 Td
.44 Tw
(with respect to challenges to the expenditure of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(trust) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( revenue.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.9 Tw
([16]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Plaintiffs' attempt to challenge OHA's expenditure of) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.4 Tw
(trust revenue thus suffers from the same fatal flaw as its chal-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.71 Tw
(lenge to the DHHL/HHC lease eligibility requirements. The) Tj
0 -13 Td
.53 Tw
(United States is an indispensable party to the challenge to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(expenditure of trust revenue, and yet Plaintiffs cannot estab-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.39 Tw
(lish standing to sue the United States either as taxpayers or as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(trust beneficiaries. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Parts III.A.2 and III.B., ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(supra) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. Plain-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(tiffs therefore cannot proceed with that claim. We do not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(reach the issue whether Plaintiffs' breach of trust claim is oth-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(erwise cognizable under the common law of trusts, which was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.39 Tw
(the basis of the district court's dismissal of the breach of trust) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(claim against OHA. Rather, we affirm the dismissal on the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(alternative ground that Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate standing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(to sue an indispensable party. ) Tj
75.078 -26 Td
(V.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(POLITICAL QUESTION) Tj
-63.078 -26 Td
.45 Tw
(The final question is whether, assuming any Plaintiffs have) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.2 Tw
(standing to bring a cause of action against the state defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(dants, that cause of action presents a nonjusticiable political) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.43 Tw
(question. The district court reasoned that in order to rule on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.21 Tw
(Plaintiffs' equal protection claims, the court would have to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(determine what level of scrutiny to apply. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Compare Grutter) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.87 Tw
(v. Bollinger) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 539 U.S. 306, 328-33 \(2003\) \(applying strict) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(scrutiny to uphold race-conscious admissions policy at state) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(university law school\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(and ) Tj
(Gratz v. Bollinger) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 539 U.S. 244,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.34 Tw
(270-75 \(2003\) \(striking down race-conscious undergraduate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(admissions policy at state university under strict scrutiny\),) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(with Morton v. Mancari) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 417 U.S. 535 \(1974\) \(applying ratio-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(nal basis, rather than strict scrutiny, to employment preference) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(that benefitted members of Indian tribe because it furthered) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.74 Tw
(Indian self-government\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(and ) Tj
(Alaska Chapter, Associated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(Gen. Contractors of Am., Inc. v. Pierce) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 694 F.2d 1162 \(9th) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.95 Tw
(Cir. 1982\) \(applying rational basis test to native Alaskans) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1603) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
98 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.38 Tw
0 Tc
(based on the federal government's ) Tj
(special obligation) Tj
( to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.81 Tw
(Indians\). The district court reasoned that although Congress) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.77 Tw
(has plenary authority over Indian affairs, it ) Tj
(has not yet) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.67 Tw
(clearly recognized Hawaiians as being equivalent to Indians) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.87 Tw
(or Indian tribes for purposes of the [) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Mancari) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(] analysis.) Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( VI, 305 F. Supp. 2d at 1172. Noting that ) Tj
(Congress) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.22 Tw
(has begun to include Hawaiians as beneficiaries in bills pro-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.5 Tw
(viding services to Native Americans) Tj
( and had pending before) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(it the ) Tj
(Akaka Bill) Tj
( that would ) Tj
(equate Hawaiians to Indians) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(and/or Indian tribes,) Tj
( the court observed that ) Tj
(Congress is still) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.17 Tw
(speaking on the issue.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1173. The district court con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(cluded that Congress ) Tj
(should make the decision as to whether) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(Hawaiians should be treated as Indians for purposes of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
([) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Mancari) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(] analysis) Tj
( and, ) Tj
(in recognition of the continuing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(debate, the court would ) Tj
(defer[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.33 Tw
(] to Congress.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1173,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(1174. We hold that these claims do not raise a nonjusticiable) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(political question. We therefore reverse the district court's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(dismissal on political question grounds. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
8.55 Tw
(Chief Justice Marshall explained in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marbury) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( that) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
([q]uestions, in their nature political, or which are, by the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.96 Tw
(be made in this court.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marbury v. Madison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 5 U.S. \(1) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(Cranch\) 137, 170 \(1803\). The Court announced the modern) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.62 Tw
(formulation of the political question doctrine in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Baker v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Carr) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(:) Tj
22 -26 Td
.41 Tw
(Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(a political question is found [1] a textually demon-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.94 Tw
(strable constitutional commitment of the issue to a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(coordinate political department; or [2] a lack of judi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.94 Tw
(cially discoverable and manageable standards for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(resolving it; or [3] the impossibility of deciding) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.65 Tw
(without an initial policy determination of a kind) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or [4] the impossi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(bility of a court's undertaking independent resolution) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.04 Tw
(without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(branches of government; or [5] an unusual need for) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1604) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
101 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
6.06 Tw
0 Tc
(unquestioning adherence to a political decision) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.04 Tw
(already made; or [6] the potentiality of embarrass-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.66 Tw
(ment from multifarious pronouncements by various) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(departments on one question. ) Tj
-22 -26.7 Td
1.36 Tw
(369 U.S. 186, 217 \(1962\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Alperin v. Vatican Bank) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 410) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.88 Tw
(F.3d 532, 537-40 \(9th Cir. 2005\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cert. denied) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.88 Tw
(Ct.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.56 Tw
(1141 ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(and) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.56 Tw
(Ct. 1160 \(2006\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(EEOC v. Peabody W. Coal) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.8 Tw
(Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 400 F.3d 774, 784 \(9th Cir. 2005\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cert. denied) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.61 Tw
(S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.61 Tw
(Ct. 1164 \(2006\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Kahawaiolaa v. Norton) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 386 F.3d 1271,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(1275 \(9th Cir. 2004\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.6 Td
.33 Tw
([17]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We have recently addressed the political question doc-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.45 Tw
(trine in the context of a challenge to the executive's failure to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.57 Tw
(recognize Hawaiians as federal Indian tribes in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Kahawaiolaa) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.43 Tw
(386 F.3d 1271. In that case, native Hawaiians alleged that the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.41 Tw
(Department of Interior had violated the equal protection com-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.57 Tw
(ponent of the Fifth Amendment in regulations limiting recog-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.21 Tw
(nition of new tribes to ) Tj
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.21 Tw
(`those American Indian groups) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.26 Tw
(indigenous to the continental United States') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.26 Tw
(which meant) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(that ) Tj
(native Hawaiians are excluded from eligibility to peti-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.22 Tw
(tion for tribal recognition under the regulations.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1274) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.32 Tw
(\(quoting 25 C.F.R. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.32 Tw
(83.3\(a\)\). The district court dismissed the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(suit against the Department of Interior, in part because matters) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.38 Tw
(of tribal recognition raise nonjusticiable political questions.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.3 Tw
(We disagreed with the district court on this point. We noted) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.14 Tw
(that ) Tj
([i]f the question before us were whether a remedy would) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.12 Tw
(lie against Congress to compel tribal recognition, the answer) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.22 Tw
(would be readily apparent. . . . a suit that sought to direct) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.26 Tw
(Congress to federally recognize an Indian tribe would be non-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.85 Tw
(justiciable as a political question.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1275-76. We found,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.53 Tw
(however, that the plaintiffs did not seek tribal recognition;) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.03 Tw
(rather, they wanted the Department of Interior to allow them) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2 Tw
(to apply for recognition ) Tj
(under the same regulatory criteria) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.17 Tw
(applied to indigenous peoples in other states.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. at 1276. We) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.27 Tw
(concluded that the plaintiffs' suit was not barred by the politi-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(cal question doctrine. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1605) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
104 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
1.45 Tw
0 Tc
(In order to stay our hand in this case, we must determine) Tj
-12 -13 Td
4.9 Tw
(that the resolution of Plaintiffs' equal protection claims) Tj
0 -13 Td
.66 Tw
(against OHA would interfere with the constitutional duties of) Tj
0 -13 Td
.17 Tw
(one of the political branches, whether that duty has been exer-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.57 Tw
(cised or not. The district court and the state defendants locate) Tj
0 -13 Td
.21 Tw
(that ) Tj
(textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.23 Tw
(issue) Tj
( in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitu-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.09 Tw
(tion: ) Tj
(The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(merce . . . with the Indian Tribes.) Tj
( The Court has observed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.91 Tw
(that ) Tj
(Congress possesses plenary power over Indian affairs,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(including the power to modify or eliminate tribal rights.) Tj
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
3.17 Tw
(South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 522 U.S. 329, 343) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(\(1998\). Thus, the ) Tj
(questions whether, to what extent, and for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.92 Tw
(what time [Indians] shall be recognized and dealt with as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(dependent tribes requiring the guardianship and protection of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(the United States are to be determined by Congress, and not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.2 Tw
(by the courts.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Sandoval) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 231 U.S. 28, 46) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(1913\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.41 Tw
(Here, no party seeks to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(compel) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Congress to recognize the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(tribal status of Hawaiians. Instead, OHA argues that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(if) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(gress has treated Hawaiians as a tribe, then under the author-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.63 Tw
(ity of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Mancari) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, OHA would have to demonstrate only a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(rational connection between its Hawaiian preferences and its) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.46 Tw
(programs. Plaintiffs argue that Congress' failure, so far, to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(recognize Hawaiians' tribal status does not ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(prevent) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the courts) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(from deciding whether OHA's Hawaiian-preference violates) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.56 Tw
(Effectively, the district court found that it could not rule on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(the equal protection claim until it could determine the appro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(priate level of scrutiny, and it could not determine the level) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.4 Tw
(of scrutiny until Congress decided to grant or not to grant) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(tribal status to Hawaiians. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.81 Tw
([18]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Nothing in the claims Plaintiffs have asserted or the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(remedy they seek invites the district court to exercise powers) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(reserved to Congress or to the President. The district court has) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(not been asked to declare tribal status where Congress has) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1606) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
108 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.73 Tw
0 Tc
(declined. Instead, it is asked to interpret the implications of) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
0 Tw
(past congressional action or inaction for equal protection anal-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.42 Tw
(ysis. Indeed, courts are frequently called upon to ) Tj
(scrutiniz[e]) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.43 Tw
(Indian legislation to determine whether it violates . . . equal) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.55 Tw
(protection.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Del. Tribal Bus. Comm. v. Weeks) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 430 U.S. 73,) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.81 Tw
(84 \(1977\). The fact that Congress enjoys ) Tj
(plenary power . . .) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.15 Tw
(in matters of Indian affairs `does not mean that all federal leg-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.63 Tw
(islation concerning Indians is . . . immune from judicial scru-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.63 Tw
(tiny.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.63 Tw
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 83-84 \(quoting Brief of the Secretary of the) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1 Tw
(Interior\). In general, ) Tj
(the political question doctrine does not) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
4.04 Tw
(bar adjudication of a facial constitutional challenge even) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.71 Tw
(though Congress has plenary authority, and the executive has) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.04 Tw
(broad delegation, over Indian affairs.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Kahawaiolaa) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 386 F.3d) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(at 1276. ) Tj
12 -27.2 Td
0 Tw
(In the exercise of its power to regulate commerce with Indi-) Tj
-12 -13.7 Td
1.62 Tw
(ans and recognize their sovereign status, Congress might be) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
3.22 Tw
(able to alter the relative burdens of proof and persuasion) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.58 Tw
(shouldered by Plaintiffs and OHA in this case.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( But Congress) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.53 Tw
(has no obligation to exercise its Article I, Section 8, Clause) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.39 Tw
(3 powers in any particular way. That it has, so far, declined) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.66 Tw
(to do so does not excuse the district court from hearing the) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.75 Tw
(case. Congress does not have a constitutionally committed) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2 Tw
(power to set the level of scrutiny for those claiming native) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.42 Tw
(American status; it has the constitutionally committed author-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.63 Tw
(ity to regulate affairs with native Americans, and the courts) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.22 Tw
(then determine which level of scrutiny is warranted by Con-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.17 Tw
(gress' action or inaction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g., Three Affiliated Tribes of) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.88 Tw
(Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng'g) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 476 U.S. 877, 882) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
3.87 Tw
(\(1986\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Antelope) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 430 U.S. 641, 645-46) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(1977\);) Tj
( Mancari) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 417 U.S. at 553 n.24. ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.9 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.93 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(We couch this in the conditional because the Court in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Rice) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( suggested) Tj
-10 -11.6 Td
.57 Tw
(that it remains ) Tj
(a matter of some dispute . . . whether Congress may treat) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.04 Tw
(the native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes.) Tj
( 528 U.S. at 518. Like) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.15 Tw
(the Court, ) Tj
([w]e can stay far off that difficult terrain) Tj
( in this appeal. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.6 Td
1 Tw
(at 519. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -430.85 m 300 -430.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1607) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
111 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
4.53 Tw
0 Tc
(Moreover, we note that even if Congress had treated) Tj
-12 -14.3 Td
2.14 Tw
(Hawaiians or native Hawaiians as a tribe, the district court) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.04 Tw
(would still have to determine whether OHA's classification) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.84 Tw
(was based on race or on tribal status. As we observed in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -14.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(Kahawaiolaa) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(: ) Tj
22 -28.3 Td
.78 Tw
() Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
.78 Tw
(As ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Rice ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(illustrates, an ) Tj
(Indian tribe) Tj
( may be clas-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.39 Tw
(sified as a ) Tj
(racial group) Tj
( in particular instances . . . .) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
0 Tw
(We reject the notion that distinctions based on Indian) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
3.28 Tw
(or tribal status can never be racial classifications) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.32 Tw
(subject to strict scrutiny. . . . Government discrimi-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.91 Tw
(nation against Indians based on race or national ori-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.14 Tw
(gin and not on membership or non-membership in) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.32 Tw
(tribal groups can be race discrimination subject to) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(strict scrutiny. ) Tj
-22 -28.3 Td
1.17 Tw
(386 F.3d at 1279 \(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Adarand Constructors v. Pena) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 515) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.14 Tw
(U.S. 200, 227 \(1995\)\). This, too, is a determination properly) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(left to the courts. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -28.2 Td
2.28 Tw
([19]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Assuming that some Plaintiffs have standing, Plain-) Tj
-12 -14.2 Td
4.52 Tw
(tiffs' claims squarely and exclusively raise a Fourteenth) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.81 Tw
(Amendment claim. The courts must therefore determine the) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.17 Tw
(proper level of scrutiny. We do not require further action by) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
2.12 Tw
(Congress to inform that determination. To deny the federal) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.25 Tw
(courts their authority to adjudicate an equal protection claim) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.82 Tw
(simply because Congress expressed its intent with less than) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.16 Tw
(complete lucidity is to expand the political question doctrine) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.46 Tw
(beyond its historical limits. In doing so, it would restrict judi-) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.08 Tw
(cial authority in unprecedented ways; such an expansive inter-) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
3.83 Tw
(pretation subverts the very separation of powers that the) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.03 Tw
(political question doctrine is designed to protect. Although the) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.83 Tw
(Supreme Court was able to postpone consideration of those) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.24 Tw
(equal protection questions of ) Tj
(considerable moment and diffi-) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.81 Tw
(culty, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Rice) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 528 U.S. at 518-19, we do not have that luxury.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1608) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
114 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12.312 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(VI.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING MISCELLANEOUS) Tj
100.356 -13 Td
(ARGUMENTS) Tj
-100.668 -26 Td
3.61 Tw
(Plaintiffs make several additional arguments on appeal,) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.25 Tw
(none of which is meritorious. Plaintiffs contend that the dis-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.36 Tw
(trict court erred in striking its Counter Motion for Summary) Tj
0 -13 Td
.25 Tw
(Judgment of December 15, 2003. The district court cited mul-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.36 Tw
(tiple grounds in its December 16, 2003 unpublished Order for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.25 Tw
(striking the motion, including: the motion was not a true) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(counter motion because it raised numerous issues not raised) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(in the motion which it purportedly countered; it was untimely;) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(and the motion was not filed in the proper round of summary) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(judgment rounds, as scheduled by the district court in a previ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ous order. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.52 Tw
([20]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We review for abuse of discretion challenges to pre-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(trial management. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Navellier v. Sletten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 262 F.3d 923, 941 \(9th) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(Cir. 2001\). ) Tj
(The district court is given broad discretion in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Johnson v. Mam-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(moth Recreations, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 975 F.2d 604, 607 \(9th Cir. 1992\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(\(citation and internal quotation marks omitted\). Plaintiffs have) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(not demonstrated that the district court's management of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(summary judgment phase of this trial constituted an abuse of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(discretion. The district court's December 16, 2003 Order is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(affirmed. Similarly, we are unpersuaded by Plaintiffs' conten-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(tion that the district court's pretrial management warrants the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(reassignment of this case to another judge and their request is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(denied. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.11 Tw
([21]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Plaintiffs also appeal the district court's May 5, 2004) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(unpublished Order awarding roughly $5300 in costs to select) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(defendants on the ground that imposing such costs will have) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.81 Tw
(a ) Tj
(chilling effect) Tj
( on civil rights litigation. We review an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(award of costs for abuse of discretion. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Evanow v. M/V Nep-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(tune) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 163 F.3d 1108, 1113 \(9th Cir. 1998\). Plaintiffs have not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.46 Tw
(demonstrated that the award of such modest costs, divided) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(among multiple plaintiffs, constitutes an abuse of discretion.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(The district court's May 5, 2004 Order is affirmed. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1609) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
117 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
1.53 Tw
0 Tc
([22]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Finally, Plaintiffs seek reversal of the district court's) Tj
-12 -13 Td
5.38 Tw
(January 26, 2004 unpublished Order denying Plaintiffs') Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(motion to compel discovery. A district court's discovery rul-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(ings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.06 Tw
(Fisher) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 137 F.3d 1158, 1165 \(9th Cir. 1998\). Again, we find) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(no abuse of discretion, and the order is affirmed. ) Tj
95.508 -26 Td
(VII.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(CONCLUSION) Tj
-83.508 -26 Td
5.85 Tw
(The district court's orders are variously affirmed or) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(reversed as follows. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
4.13 Tw
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( I, 198 F. Supp. 2d 1165 \(D. Haw. 2002\), is) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.24 Tw
(affirmed in part and reversed in part. We reverse the court's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(holding that Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the appro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(priation of state tax revenue to OHA. We reverse the holding) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.5 Tw
(that Plantiffs have standing as taxpayers to challenge the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(appropriation of tax revenue to DHHL/HHC. We affirm the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(denial of standing to challenge the settlement of past claims) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(against OHA. We affirm the denial of standing to challenge) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(the issuance of bonds and the denial of standing to challenge) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(all other spending that does not originate in tax revenue. The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(remaining issues addressed in that order are not on appeal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
3.73 Tw
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( II, 299 F. Supp. 2d 1090 \(D. Haw. 2002\), is) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(affirmed in part and reversed in part. We reverse Plaintiffs') Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(standing to challenge the appropriation of state tax revenue to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(the OHA. We reverse the grant of standing to challenge the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(appropriation of tax revenue to DHHL/HHC. We affirm the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(denial of standing to sue as trust beneficiaries. We affirm the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.86 Tw
(denial of the motion to dismiss the tax revenue claim against) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.46 Tw
(OHA under the political question doctrine. We reverse the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.86 Tw
(denial of the motion to dismiss the tax revenue claim against) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.92 Tw
(DHHL/HHC. The remaining issues in that order are not on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(appeal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
3.33 Tw
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(III, 299 F. Supp. 2d 1107 \(D. Haw. 2002\), is) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.74 Tw
(affirmed on different grounds. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(IV, 299 F. Supp. 2d) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1610) Tj
107.8342 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
120 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.11 Tw
0 Tc
(1114 \(D. Haw. 2003\), and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(V, 299 F. Supp. 2d 1129) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.77 Tw
(\(D. Haw. 2003\), are affirmed. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Arakaki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( VI, 305 F. Supp. 2d) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.13 Tw
(1161 \(D. Haw. 2004\), is reversed. All remaining orders in this) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(case are affirmed. ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
(The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.2 Td
2.66 Tw
(AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(REMANDED.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
434 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(1611) Tj
-170.1658 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RAKAKI) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGLE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
134 0 obj
<>
endobj
135 0 obj
<>stream
Wednesday February 7, 2007 14:47:39
ECMP5
VERSACOMP R05.2
2008-01-29T12:56:24-07:00
2008-01-29T12:56:24-07:00
2008-01-29T12:56:24-07:00
application/pdf
Arakaki v. Lingle (Opinion)
uuid:fe103e04-dbd7-47b7-9462-74995a005e0c
uuid:13d6e3d7-f182-43d0-8d9c-cd9146fd8d26
endstream
endobj
xref
2 1
0000164425 00000 n
4 1
0000164489 00000 n
12 1
0000170688 00000 n
15 1
0000175386 00000 n
18 1
0000177249 00000 n
21 1
0000179287 00000 n
24 1
0000184115 00000 n
27 1
0000187665 00000 n
31 1
0000191483 00000 n
34 1
0000195757 00000 n
37 1
0000200152 00000 n
40 1
0000203873 00000 n
43 1
0000208024 00000 n
46 1
0000211802 00000 n
51 1
0000215904 00000 n
54 1
0000219820 00000 n
57 1
0000223737 00000 n
60 1
0000227811 00000 n
63 1
0000231977 00000 n
66 1
0000235673 00000 n
70 1
0000239550 00000 n
73 1
0000243524 00000 n
76 1
0000247954 00000 n
79 1
0000251992 00000 n
82 1
0000255945 00000 n
85 1
0000259959 00000 n
89 1
0000264049 00000 n
92 1
0000267957 00000 n
95 1
0000272609 00000 n
98 1
0000276535 00000 n
101 1
0000280454 00000 n
104 1
0000284618 00000 n
108 1
0000288490 00000 n
111 1
0000292658 00000 n
114 1
0000296057 00000 n
117 1
0000299673 00000 n
120 1
0000303102 00000 n
134 2
0000304170 00000 n
0000304409 00000 n
trailer
<<3D50D8282D17C3408E60D9E21015D951>]/Prev 161650 >>
startxref
308145
%%EOF
135 0 obj
<>stream
Wednesday February 7, 2007 14:47:39
ECMP5
VERSACOMP R05.2
2008-05-13T14:44:07-06:00
2008-01-29T12:56:24-07:00
2008-05-13T14:44:07-06:00
application/pdf
Arakaki v. Lingle
uuid:fe103e04-dbd7-47b7-9462-74995a005e0c
uuid:453b915b-d6fd-40c8-8f9c-8305422198ff
endstream
endobj
136 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
135 2
0000309325 00000 n
0000313051 00000 n
trailer
<<123370FFD411AF44B2BE01E5892E4222>]/Prev 308145 >>
startxref
313278
%%EOF