Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-15-17453/USCOURTS-ca9-15-17453-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KELI’I AKINA; KEALII MAKEKAU;

JOSEPH KENT; YOSHIMASA SEAN

MITSUI; PEDRO KANA’E GAPERO;

MELISSA LEINA’ALA MONIZ,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

STATE OF HAWAII; DAVID Y. IGE,

Governor; ROBERT K. LINDSEY, JR.,

Chairperson, Board of Trustees,

Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in his

official capacity; COLETTE Y.

MACHADO; PETER APO; HAUNANI

APOLIONA; ROWENA M.N. AKANA;

JOHN D. WAIHE’E, IV; CARMEN

HULU LINDSEY; DAN AHUNA;

LEINA’ALA AHU ISA, Trustees,

Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in their

official capacities; KAMANA’OPONO

CRABBE, Chief Executive Officer,

Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in his

official Capacity; JOHN D. WAIHE’E,

III, Chairman, Native Hawaiian Roll

Commission, in his official

Capacity; NA’ALEHU ANTHONY; LEI

KIHOI; ROBIN DANNER; MAHEALANI

WENDT, Commissioners, Native

Hawaiian Roll Commission, in their

No. 15-17134

D.C. No.

1:15-cv-00322-

JMS-BMK

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 1 of 17
2 AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII

official capacities; CLYDE W.

NAMU’O, Executive Director, Native

Hawaiian Roll Commission, in his

official capacity; THE AKAMAI

FOUNDATION; THE NA‘I AUPUNI

FOUNDATION; DOE DEFENDANTS,

1–50,

Defendants-Appellees.

KELI’I AKINA; KEALII MAKEKAU;

JOSEPH KENT; YOSHIMASA SEAN

MITSUI; PEDRO KANA’E GAPERO;

MELISSA LEINA’ALA MONIZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF HAWAII; DAVID Y. IGE,

Governor; ROBERT K. LINDSEY, JR.,

Chairperson, Board of Trustees,

Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in his

official capacity; COLETTE Y.

MACHADO; PETER APO; HAUNANI

APOLIONA; ROWENA M.N. AKANA;

JOHN D. WAIHE’E, IV; CARMEN

HULU LINDSEY; DAN AHUNA;

LEINA’ALA AHU ISA, Trustees,

Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in their

official capacities; KAMANA’OPONO

CRABBE, Chief Executive Officer,

Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in his

official Capacity; JOHN D. WAIHE’E,

No. 15-17453

D.C. No.

1:15-cv-00322-

JMS-BMK

OPINION

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 2 of 17
AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII 3

III, Chairman, Native Hawaiian Roll

Commission, in his official

Capacity; NA’ALEHU ANTHONY; LEI

KIHOI; ROBIN DANNER; MAHEALANI

WENDT, Commissioners, Native

Hawaiian Roll Commission, in their

official capacities; CLYDE W.

NAMU’O, Executive Director, Native

Hawaiian Roll Commission, in his

official capacity; THE AKAMAI

FOUNDATION; THE NA‘I AUPUNI

FOUNDATION,

Defendants-Appellees,

v.

SAMUEL L. KEALOHA, JR.; VIRGIL E.

DAY; JOSIAH L. HOOHULI; PATRICK

L. KAHAWAIOLAA; MELVIN

HOOMANAWANUI, Proposed

Intervenors,

Movants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

J. Michael Seabright, Chief Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 17, 2016

Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed August 29, 2016

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 3 of 17
4 AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge,

and Consuelo M. Callahan and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit

Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

SUMMARY*

Civil Rights

The panel dismissed plaintiffs’ interlocutory appeal as

moot and affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to

intervene in a lawsuit brought by Hawaii residents who

challenged efforts by a group of Native Hawaiians to

establish their own government, in accordance with measures

approved by the Hawaii Legislature. 

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court’s order denying

their request for a preliminary injunction to stop activities

related to the drafting and ratification of self-governance

documents. The panel noted that the challenged election had

been cancelled, that plaintiffs did not argue that similar

elections will occur in the future, that a ratification vote on a

draft constitution had not been called and that no other

ratification elections were scheduled. The panel further noted

that one of the defendants had dissolved as a non-profit

corporation and any future election would likely be held by

an entity that was not a party to this litigation. Given those

changed circumstances, the panel concluded that the court

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 4 of 17
AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII 5

could not provide any effective relief sought in the

preliminary injunction request. The panel held that plaintiffs’

appeal did not fall within an exception to the mootness

doctrine. 

The panel also affirmed the district court’s denial of a

motion to intervene as of right in the plaintiffs’ underlying

lawsuit. The prospective intervenors, who qualified as Native

Hawaiians under a definition that was narrower than that

established by the Hawaii Legislature, sought to challenge the

more liberal definition, and the creation of a Native Hawaiian

government based on that definition, as well as the related

expenditure of state trust funds intended to benefit Native

Hawaiians. The panel held that to the extent that the

proposed intervenors sought to stop the delegate and

ratification elections, their appeal was moot. To the extent

they sought to intervene on other grounds, the panel agreed

with the district court that the prospective intervenors’

interests would not, as a practical matter, be impaired or

impeded as a result of the plaintiffs’ litigation. The panel

agreed that the proposed intervenors’ claims would raise

entirely different issues from those raised by the plaintiffs,

and that the proposed intervenors could adequately protect

their interests in separate litigation.

COUNSEL

Robert D. Popper (argued), Paul J. Orfanedes, Lauren M.

Burke, and Chris Fedeli, Judicial Watch, Inc., Washington,

D.C.; Michael A. Lilly, Ning Lilly & Jones, Honolulu,

Hawaii; H. Christopher Coates, Law Offices of H.

Christopher Coates, Charleston, South Carolina; for

Plaintiffs-Appellants.

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 5 of 17
6 AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII

Kannon K. Shanmugam (argued), Ellen E. Oberwetter, Eli S.

Schlam, and Masha G. Hansford, Williams & Connolly LLP,

Washington, D.C.; Robert G. Klein, McCorriston Miller

Mukai MacKinnon LLP, Honolulu, Hawaii; for DefendantsAppellees Robert K. Lindsey, Jr., Collette Y. Machado, Peter

Apo, Haunani Apoliona, Rowena Akana, John D. Waihe’e

IV, Carmen Hulu Lindsey, Dan Ahuna, Leina’ala Ahu Isa,

and Kamana’opono Crabbe.

Donna H. Kalama (argued), Girard D. Lau, and Robert T.

Nakatsuji, Deputy Attorneys General; Douglas S. Chin,

Attorney General; Department of the Attorney General,

Honolulu, Hawaii; for Defendants-Appellees State of Hawaii,

David Y. Ige, John D. Waihe’e III, Na’alehu Anthony, Lei

Kihoi, Robin Danner, Mahealani Wendt, and Clyde W.

Namu’o.

David J. Minkin (argued), Troy J.H. Andrade, and Jessica M.

Wan,McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP, Honolulu,

Hawaii; for Defendant-Appellee The Na‘i Aupuni

Foundation.

William Meheula, Nadine Y. Ando, and Natasha L.N.

Baldauf, Sullivan Meheula Lee LLLP, Honolulu, Hawaii, for

Defendants-Appellees The Na‘i Aupuni Foundation and The

Akamai Foundation.

Walter R. Schoettle (argued), Honolulu, Hawaii, for

Movants-Appellants.

Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.; Noel H.

Johnson, Kaylan L. Phillips, and Joseph A. Vanderhulst,

Public Interest Legal Foundation, Plainfield, Indiana; for

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 6 of 17
AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII 7

Amici Curiae American Civil Rights Union and Cato

Institute.

Sam Hirsch, R. Justin Smith, Matthew R. Oakes, and Robert

P. Stockman, Attorneys; John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney

General; Environment & Natural Resources Division, United

States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Jody A.

Cummings, Scott Keep, Barbara N. Coen, and Daniel D.

Lewerenz; Hilary C. Tompkins, Solicitor; Office of the

Solicitor, United States Department of the Interior,

Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae United States.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

These appeals concern recent efforts by a group of Native

Hawaiians to establish their own government. The plaintiffs

are Hawaii residents who challenge that process. They appeal

the district court’s order denying their request for a

preliminary injunction to stop activities related to the drafting

and ratification of self-governance documents. Separately,

another group of Hawaii residents appeals the district court’s

denial of their motion to intervene in the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeal

of the preliminary injunction order as moot, and we affirm the

district court’s denial of the motion to intervene.

I.

In 2011, the Hawaii Legislature approved measures “to

provide for and to implement the recognition of the Native

Hawaiian people by means and methods that will facilitate

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 7 of 17
8 AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII

their self-governance.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 10H-2. The

legislation contemplated that Native Hawaiians may

“independently” host a convention “for the purpose of

organizing themselves.” Id. § 10H-5. The legislation also

established a commission to maintain “a roll of qualified

Native Hawaiians” who are descendants of the indigenous

peoples who founded the Hawaiian nation. Id. § 10H-3.1

Na<i Aupuni, one of the defendants in this case, was a

Hawaiian non-profit corporation that supported those Native

Hawaiian self-governance efforts. In 2015, Na<i Aupuni

proposed holding a constitutional convention or gathering,

termed an <Aha,

2

to discuss and draft self-governance

documents, such as a constitution. Na<i Aupuni requested and

received grant funds from a state agency, the Office of

Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), for the “election of delegates,

election and referendum monitoring, a governance ‘Aha, and

a referendum to ratify any recommendation of the delegates

arising out of the ‘Aha.” To select delegates for the

1 A dispute exists over the definition of “qualified Native Hawaiian”

used in the 2011 legislation. The statute at issue defines “qualified Native

Hawaiian” in part as an adult “descendant of the aboriginal peoples who,

prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian

islands.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 10H-3(a)(2)(A)(i). That liberal definition,

however, has no blood quantum requirement, unlike the admission

requirements of most Native American tribes. See Rice v. Cayetano,

528 U.S. 495, 526–27 (2000) (Breyer, J., concurring). The prospective

intervenors in this case are among those who believe the definition of

Native Hawaiian should be more restrictive. In this opinion, “Native

Hawaiian” refers to the definition in the 2011 legislation, unless otherwise

noted.

 

2 An <Aha is defined as a “[m]eeting, assembly, gathering, convention,

court, party.” Ulukau Hawaiian Dictionary, available at

http://wehewehe.org.

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 8 of 17
AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII 9

convention, the organization scheduled a vote-by-mail

election and limited the pool of candidates and voters to

Native Hawaiians who appeared on the roll maintained by the

state commission.

The delegate election was scheduled for November 1

through November 30, 2015. The elected delegates would

then attend the constitutional convention to discuss forming

a government, and to possibly draft a constitution. Any

proposed constitution would then be subject to a ratification

vote, with the universe of voters again limited to Native

Hawaiians included on the roll maintained by the state

commission. At the end of the process, any resulting

government would lack an official legal status until it was

recognized by the state or federal government.

In August 2015, three months before the planned delegate

election, the plaintiffs sued the State of Hawaii, various state

government officers and agencies, Na<i Aupuni, and another

non-profit organization that was a party to the agreement that

provided state funds for Na<i Aupuni’s election efforts.

Central to the lawsuit was the contention that the delegate

election and any election to ratify a constitution were

unconstitutional because the state was intertwined in the

process and had limited participation based on Hawaiian

ancestry. The complaint specifically alleged various

violations of the United States Constitution and VotingRights

Act arising from the race-based and viewpoint-based

restrictions on voting and candidate eligibility. Among the

requested relief, the plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent

the use of the contested roll of Native Hawaiians and “the

calling, holding, or certifying of any election utilizing the

Roll.” The complaint further asked the court to “enjoin[] the

defendants from requiring prospective applicants for any

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 9 of 17
10 AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII

voter roll to” make any viewpoint-based declarations or

verify their ancestry.

Approximately two weeks after filing the complaint, the

plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to “prevent[]

Defendant’s [sic] from undertaking certain voter registration

activities and from calling or holding racially-exclusive

elections for Native Hawaiians.” A month later, on September

25, 2015, a separate group of Hawaii residents moved to

intervene in the lawsuit to challenge the definition of “Native

Hawaiian” adopted by Na<i Aupuni and the 2011 state

legislation. The residents also sought to recover state trust

funds—designated to benefit Native Hawaiians—used in the

election efforts.

The district court denied the preliminary injunction

request after concluding that the plaintiffs had not met any of

the requirements described in Winter v. Natural Resources

Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). The district court

later denied the motion to intervene, reasoning that the

prospective intervenors did not have a “significantly

protectable interest relating to” the subject of the plaintiffs’

lawsuit, and that they were not “situated such that the

disposition of the” lawsuit “may impair or impede” their

ability to protect any such interest, quoting Arakaki v.

Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003).

The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s preliminary

injunction order and sought an injunction pending appeal

from this court. A motions panel denied the request for an

injunction pending appeal. On November 27, 2015, three

days before voting in the delegate election was to end, Justice

Kennedy enjoined the counting of ballots and certification of

winners “pending further order.” Akina v. Hawaii, — S. Ct.

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 10 of 17
AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII 11

—, 193 L. Ed. 2d 420 (Nov. 27, 2015) (mem.). On December

2, 2015, a five-Justice majority of the Supreme Court

enjoined the defendants “from counting ballots cast in, and

certifying winners of, the election described in the

application, pending final disposition of the appeal by” this

court. Akina v. Hawaii, 136 S. Ct. 581 (2015) (mem.).

Two weeks after the Supreme Court’s order, Na<i Aupuni

cancelled the election due to concern about litigation-related

delays. Instead of the election, the organization decided to

offer all 196 Native Hawaiian candidates “a seat as a

delegate” to the convention “to learn about, discuss and

hopefully reach a consensus on a process to achieve selfgovernance.” The plaintiffs then filed a motion for civil

contempt in the Supreme Court, alleging that Na<i Aupuni’s

decision essentially declared all the candidates winners, in

violation of the Court’s previous order. The Supreme Court

denied the contempt motion. Akina v. Hawaii, 136 S.Ct. 922

(2016) (mem.).

The <Aha took place in February 2016, resulting in a

proposed constitution for a Native Hawaiian government.

Na<i Aupuni, however, decided not to fund a ratification vote

and stated that it would return remaining grant funds

allocated for the ratification election. No other elections have

been proposed and no governing entity has been formed or

recognized by the state or federal government.

In April 2016, Na<i Aupuni dissolved as an entity.

Although it appears that some <Aha participants are separately

trying to organize and raise private funds for a ratification

vote, it remains unclear what such an election would look

like, who would hold it, and when it would take place, if at

all.

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 11 of 17
12 AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII

II.

On appeal, the plaintiffs challenge the district court’s

order denying their request for a preliminary injunction. The

prospective intervenors challenge the denial of their motion

to intervene. We consider each in turn.

A.

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 to

review the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive

relief. The court, however, has no jurisdiction over an appeal

that has become moot. Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745

(9th Cir. 2003).

An interlocutory appeal of the denial of a preliminary

injunction is moot when a court can no longer grant any

effective relief sought in the injunction request. See In Def. of

Animals v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 648 F.3d 1012, 1013 (9th

Cir. 2011) (per curiam); see generally Campbell-Ewald Co.

v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 669 (2016). The interlocutory

appeal may be moot even though the underlying case still

presents a live controversy. In Def. of Animals, 648 F.3d at

1013; see also CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Props.,

Inc., 48 F.3d 618, 621 (1st Cir. 1995).

Here, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction solely

to “prevent[] Defendant’s [sic]from undertaking certain voter

registration activities and from calling or holding raciallyexclusive elections for Native Hawaiians.” Before the district

court, the plaintiffs focused their injunction request on the

delegation election. That election, however, has been

cancelled, and the plaintiffs do not argue that similar

elections will occur in the future. Instead, the plaintiffs argue

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 12 of 17
AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII 13

on appeal that the injunction should encompass a ratification

vote on the draft constitution produced at the <Aha. Na<i

Aupuni, however, has decided not call a ratification vote. No

other ratification elections have been scheduled. Further, Na<i

Aupuni itself has dissolved as a non-profit corporation and

any future election would likely be held by an entity that is

not a party to this litigation. Given those changed

circumstances, this court cannot provide any effective relief

sought in the preliminary injunction request.

We also conclude that the plaintiffs’ appeal does not fall

within an exception to the mootness doctrine. Under the

voluntary cessation exception, a defendant’s decision to stop

a challenged practice generally “does not deprive a federal

court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.”

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC),

Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (quoting City of Mesquite v.

Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982)); see also

Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 132 S. Ct. 2277,

2287 (2012) (remarking that post-appeal “maneuvers

designed to insulate a decision from review by [an appellate

court] must be viewed with a critical eye”). But even in such

circumstances, an appeal may be properly dismissed as moot

if events make “it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful

behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends

of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 189 (citing United States v.

Concentrated Phosphate Exp. Ass’n, 393 U.S. 199, 203

(1968)). Here, for the reasons previously discussed, the

defendants have met their burden to convince “the court that

the challenged conduct cannot be reasonably expected to start

up again.” Id.

It is possible, and perhaps even likely, that a different

group of individuals who are not parties to this case will try

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 13 of 17
14 AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII

to hold a ratification election with private and public funds.

No such vote, however, has been scheduled, and it is unclear

what shape it would take. Any opinion by this court at this

juncture would amount to an impermissible advisory opinion

that would, at most, guide any future ratification efforts. See

Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 102 (1982) (per

curiam) (“We do not sit to decide hypothetical issues or to

give advisory opinions about issues as to which there are not

adverse parties before us.”).

For similar reasons, this appeal does not fall within the

exception to mootness for disputes that are “capable of

repetition, yet evading review.” Weinstein v. Bradford,

423 U.S. 147, 148–49 (1975) (per curiam). That exception is

reserved for “‘extraordinary cases’ in which (1) ‘the duration

of the challenged action is too short to be fully litigated

before it ceases,’ and (2) ‘there is a reasonable expectation

that the plaintiffs will be subjected to the same action again.’” 

Doe v. Madison Sch. Dist. No. 321, 177 F.3d 789, 798 (9th

Cir. 1999) (en banc) (quoting Am. Rivers v. Nat’l Marine

Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 1997)); accord

United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932, 938 (2011) (per

curiam).

Here, the plaintiffs cannot satisfy the second requirement.

There is no reasonable expectation that the plaintiffs will be

subject to the same injury again, given Na<i Aupuni’s

disavowal of any election. Further, the district court retains

jurisdiction over the underlying lawsuit, and dismissing the

preliminary injunction appeal will not, by itself, insulate the

defendants’ practices from judicial scrutiny.

3

3 We pass no judgment on what aspects of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit

continue to present a live controversy.

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 14 of 17
AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII 15

We therefore dismiss the plaintiffs’ interlocutory appeal

as moot.

B.

We separately affirm the district court’s denial of the

motion to intervene as of right in the plaintiffs’ underlying

lawsuit. The prospective intervenors qualify as Native

Hawaiians under a definition that is narrower than the one in

the 2011 legislation. They seek to challenge the more liberal

definition, the creation of a Native Hawaiian government

based on that definition, and the related expenditure of state

trust funds intended to benefit Native Hawaiians.

This court conducts a de novo review of the district

court’s order adjudicating a claim of intervention as of right.

Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1082. To the extent that the proposed

intervenors seek to stop the delegate and ratification

elections, their appeal is moot for the reasons previously

discussed. To the extent that they seek to intervene on other

grounds—such as to recover state funds already spent on

election efforts—we hold that the district court did not err by

denying the motion to intervene.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), an

individual seeking to intervene as of right must (1) timely

move to intervene; (2) demonstrate “a significantly

protectable interest relating to the property or transaction that

is the subject of the action”; (3) “be situated such that the

disposition of the action may impair or impede the party’s

ability to protect that interest”; and (4) not be adequately

represented by existing parties. Id. at 1083. The question of

whether protectable interests will be impaired by litigation

“must be put in practical terms rather than in legal terms.”

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 15 of 17
16 AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII

7C Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & MaryKayKane,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1908.2 (3d ed. 2007); see

also Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F.2d 175, 179 (D.C. Cir. 1969)

(“The decision whether intervention of right is warranted . . .

involves an accommodation between two potentially

conflicting goals: to achieve judicial economies of scale by

resolving related issues in a single lawsuit, and to prevent the

single lawsuit from becoming fruitlessly complex or

unending.”).

We agree with the district court that the prospective

intervenors’ interests would not, as a practical matter, be

impaired or impeded as a result of the plaintiffs’ litigation.

The district court properly reasoned that the prospective

intervenors’ claims would raise entirely different issues from

those raised by the plaintiffs, and that the proposed

intervenors could adequatelyprotect their interests in separate

litigation. Whereas the plaintiffs argue that the state is being

too restrictive in limiting participation in the formation of a

Native Hawaiian government, the proposed intervenors

would argue that the state should be more restrictive. Further,

as the district court noted, the prospective intervenors’

challenge to the expenditure of state trust funds would

“expand the suit well beyond the scope of the current action.”

See Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1086 (holding that a prospective

intervenor was “not permitted to inject new, unrelated issues

into the pending litigation”). Regardless of how the plaintiffs’

lawsuit is resolved, the prospective intervenors will remain

free to attempt to organize a native government based on the

narrower definition of Native Hawaiian, and then seek state

and federal recognition. Further, the prospective intervenors

may bring a separate action challenging the expenditure of

trust funds, just as they have done previously in analogous

contexts. See Day v. Apoliona, 616 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir.

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 16 of 17
AKINA V. STATE OF HAWAII 17

2010) (holding that the OHA could legally use trust money to

support legislation that defined “Native Hawaiian” without a

blood quantum requirement); Kealoha v. Machado, 315 P.3d

213, 229–30 (Haw. 2013) (upholding the dismissal of the

prospective intervenors’ claim that OHA’s expenditure of

trust funds for the benefit of a broader set of “Native

Hawaiians” was a breach of fiduciary duty).

We therefore affirm the district court’s order denying

intervention as of right.

III.

For the aforementioned reasons, we DISMISS the

plaintiffs’ interlocutory appeal as moot and AFFIRM the

district court’s denial of the motion to intervene.

 Case: 15-17453, 08/29/2016, ID: 10122682, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 17 of 17