Case Title: The Sierra Club v. The Department of Transportation of the State of Hawaii

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2009-05-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW LIBRARY

no. 29035
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

 

‘THE SIERRA CLUB, a California non-profit corporation
registered to do business in the State of Hawail; MAUI TOMORROW,
INC., a Hawaii non-profit corporation; and the KARULUI

HARBOR COALITION, an unincorporated associat
Plaintitfs-Appellants/Cross:
Appellees /Appellees/Cross-Appellants,

~ a

SHE DEPARIVENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE STATE oFefaanas
BRENNON MORIOKA, in his capacity as Director of the SMPARIMGgT OF
TRANSPORTATION OF THE SPRFE OF HAWAII) HEGHAEL FORMBY, Ines
Capacity as Director of Harbors of the DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSCORTATIGN OF THE STATE OF HANATL) HAWAII SUPERFERRY, INC,
Defendants-Appellees/croes~
Appellants /appelianes/Cross appellees.

 

WT

 

coma
WY EL Av soog
ans

 

APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT
(crv. NO, 05-1-0114)

ORDER OF AMENDMENT
(By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, JJ., and
recused)

Circuit Judge Town, in place of Levinson, J.,
‘The Opinion of the court, filed on March 16, 2009 in

 

the above-entitled appeal, is hereby amended as follow:
1. On page 68, the paragraph constituting Part
beginning as “Because we find that Act 2 created an

IV.A.2.0.
shall be replaced, so that as corrected

illusory class... ,
the text reads as follows:

In summary, Article XZ,
requires that “[t]he legislative

section § of the

Hawai'i Constitution,
power over the lands owned by or under the control of

the State and its political subdivisions shall be
exercised only by general law.” Haw. Const. art. XI, §

5 (emphasis added). We now adopt the following test

for determining if a law is general for the purpose of
Article XI, section 5 of the Hawai'i Constitution.
As previously stated by this court, a general
law must apply uniformly. Bulgo, 50 Haw. at 58, 430
P.2d at 326. However, a law that applies uniformly to
® particular class may also be a general law if: 1)
the class created is genuine and not logically limited
to a class of one and thus illusory, and 2) the class
created is reasonable. See Canister, 110 P.3d at 383.

A class is not illusory if it could include
other members in the future. Id, at 304. Further, the
actual probability of other menbers joining the class
must be considered when determining if a class is
illusory. Haman v. Marsh, 467 N.W.2d at 849; Town of
Surprise, 800 P.2d at 1259.

Because we find that Act 2 created an
illusory class (i.e., “large capacity ferry vessel
company”), we need not address the second step of this
test. Canister, 110 P.3d at 383.

Accordingly, we hold that Act 2, is a special
law in violation of Article XI, section 5 of the
Hawai'i Constitution. The circuit court thus erred
when it concluded that Act 2 was constitutional and
dismissed Sierra Club’s claims as moot.

2. On page 111, the second paragraph, beginning as

“This constitutional limitation . . . ,” and the third paragraph,
beginning as “That our Constitution prohibits . . . ,” shall be
deleted.

3. On page 111, footnote “33” shall be inserted after
the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, which begins as
wact 2 is a special law. . . .” The text of the inserted
footnote shall read as follows:
Our holding is based solely on our “general Law analysis
and does not in any vay involve an equal protection” analysis,

“hich involves a different standard. Ae stated by the Arizona
Suprene Court:

 

 

Although similar policies are involved,
constitutional prohibitions against special

2
Legislation serve a purpose distinguishable from
equal protection provisions. Equal protection
£2 denied when the state unreasonably
Gieceiminates against a peracn or class,
Prohibited special legisistion, on the other
hand, unreasonably and arbitrarily di

tn" tavar of 2 person or class by grat
special of exclusive immunity, peiviuege, oF

 

 

‘apie Tene)” quot ng Artaana ciona israsnen’
oF biza toss, toeo Aes SEE
An amended opinion and the concurring and dissenting
opinion are being filed concurrently with this order,
incorporating the foregoing amendments. The original opinion and
the original concurring and dissenting opinion filed on March 16,

 

2009 are vacated and the amended opinion and the concurring and
dissenting opinion are substituted therefore.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is
directed to provide a copy of this order and a copy of the
amended opinion and the concurring and dissenting opinion to the
parties and notify the publishing agencies of the changes. The
Clerk of the Court is further instructed to distribute copies of
this order of amendment to those who received the previously
filed opinion.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, May 13, 2009.

Grr

Deana Coy Dar

a———*

Came: Rutty

pos