Hawaii Supreme Court Critiques U.S. Supreme Court in Major Ruling

The Hawaii Supreme Court has recently taken a bold stance by overturning long-standing criminal convictions, using the opportunity to voice strong criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts’ Supreme Court. Justices accused the nation’s highest court of diminishing constitutional rights, undermining democratic principles, and pushing a political agenda.

The majority opinion, penned by Judge Todd Eddins, was part of the ruling in State v. Granillo, a case involving a man convicted in 1990 for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman in Maui. The court mandated a new trial, indicating that evidence from FBI experts, namely hair and fiber samples, relied on now-discredited forensic science.

In his opinion, Eddins did more than just address the specifics of the case; he launched an unusually sharp critique of the Roberts court, arguing that Hawaii courts should not depend on its interpretations when considering the state constitution. He pointedly stated, “When six justices walk away from the people they are supposed to protect, the state constitution holds the line,” referring to the court’s conservative majority. He implied this is not merely rebellion, but a necessary design.

Eddins emphasized that Hawaii’s constitution offers stronger protections compared to the federal constitution as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the latter has strayed from cornerstone civil rights principles. His remarks evoked historical cases like Brown v. Board of Education, which ended racial segregation in schools, and the notorious Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson cases, which upheld racial inequality.

The judge accused the Roberts court of betraying the constitutional values established in Brown. He argued that their originalist approach mirrors the discredited interpretations seen in both Dred Scott and Plessy decisions. “Today’s arrogant originalists use the same methods to control modern life,” he stated, suggesting a troubling trend where courts invalidate congressional actions and disregard the will of the people.

Throughout his opinion, Eddins highlighted significant decisions of the Roberts court as examples of the erosion of constitutional safeguards. He noted cases such as Citizens United v. FEC, which affected campaign finance, and others regarding gerrymandering and presidential privilege, indicating a worrying pattern. He accused the court of adopting a “color-blind” interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, implying it neglects its original intent to defend the rights of formerly enslaved Black Americans.

In his view, recent rulings have empowered government officials and the elite while compromising individual rights. “A court that systematically dismantles democratic guarantees and diminishes human dignity does not align with the spirit of the Hawaii Constitution,” he wrote.

The opinion has drawn swift condemnation from legal experts, who find it quite unusual for a state’s highest court to dedicate significant commentary to critiquing the U.S. Supreme Court. Iowa Attorney General Eric Wessan noted, “The Supreme Court is conducting an unrestricted attack on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. I’ve never seen anything like this. And it’s not good.”

Jonathan Turley, a law professor, echoed this concern, stating that the opinion “lacks judicial restraint and civility,” and suggested it insinuates that the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is essentially racist.

This ruling follows a significant setback for Hawaii, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the state in a recent case regarding gun owner permissions, marking a notable loss for state regulations.

Judge Eddins, appointed by former Democratic Governor David Ige, has served on the Hawaii Supreme Court since 2020.