Hawaii Supreme Court judge claims Roberts Court is damaging democracy

Important Year for the High Court

Paul Gigot and John Yoo recently analyzed the Supreme Court’s significant term, noting that it concluded with key rulings on birthright citizenship and executive authority. Yoo suggested that, despite criticism from the political left, the court’s conservative majority aims to limit the administrative state and uphold originalism, focusing on the Constitution’s original text, particularly the Bill of Rights and federalist principles.

The Hawaii Supreme Court justices used their recent ruling to overturn longstanding criminal convictions as an opportunity to harshly criticize Chief Justice John Roberts’ Supreme Court. They accused it of eroding constitutional protections, weakening democracy, and pushing a political agenda.

In the case of State v. Granillo, which was heard on a Wednesday, the issue revolved around a man convicted in 1990 of kidnapping and sexual assault in Maui. The court mandated a retrial after determining that the evidence from FBI experts was based on forensic techniques that are now considered unreliable.

Judge Todd Eddins, who delivered the 91-page majority opinion, argued that Hawaii’s courts should not depend on the Roberts court for interpreting the state constitution. He used this case to launch a pointed critique of the nation’s highest court.

Eddins expressed that when the justices fail to protect the people, the state constitution provides the necessary safeguards. He emphasized that this stance does not equate to rebellion, but rather is part of the intended design.

He maintained that Hawaii’s constitution offers stronger protections than its federal counterpart as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Eddins also claimed that the court has forsaken foundational civil rights principles.

According to him, various decisions from the Roberts court illustrate a disregard for the constitutional protections established in cases like Brown v. Board of Education—the landmark case from 1954 that abolished public school segregation—and instead reflect the same flawed reasoning found in the discredited rulings of Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson.

Eddins criticized the court for applying a “color-blind” interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause. He argued that this view ignores the initial intention of the clause, which was to safeguard the rights of formerly enslaved Black Americans. He controversially claimed, “The Roberts court sees only white people,” stressing a neglect towards the realities of the past.

The criticisms from Eddins raised eyebrows among legal experts, who found it unusual for a state supreme court ruling to focus so much on disparaging the U.S. Supreme Court. Some, like Iowa Attorney General Eric Ouessan, described it as an unrestricted attack on the legitimacy of the higher court. Others noted it lacked necessary judicial decorum.

This opinion came shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Hawaii in the Wolford v. Lopez case, a decision that nullified the state’s “vampire rule,” which had required gun owners to gain consent from property owners before carrying firearms into public places.