Opinion ID: 871559
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Yamasaki and OHA

Text: In Yamasaki, the OHA Trustees initiated two lawsuits, which were consolidated, against state officials and a public corporation. 69 Haw. at 157, 737 P.2d at 448. The trustees sought declaratory and injunctive relief on the basis that OHA was entitled to 20% of the income derived from the State's dispositions of ceded lands, pursuant to HRS § 10-13.5, which stated that [t]wenty per cent of all funds derived from the . . . trust . . . shall be expended by [OHA] for the purposes set forth in HRS § 10-3, which include the betterment of conditions of native Hawaiians. 69 Haw. at 157-58, 737 P.2d at 448-49. In the first of the consolidated lawsuits, the OHA plaintiffs sought a declaration that OHA was entitled to 20% of the proceeds received by the State, or an undivided 20% of the land conveyed to the State in lieu of proceeds, as a result of illegal sand mining at Papohaku Beach, allegedly situated on ceded lands included in the public trust. See 69 Haw. at 165-166, 737 P.2d at 453. In the second of the consolidated lawsuits, the OHA plaintiffs sought a declaration that OHA was entitled to 20% of the income derived by the State from sales, leases, or other dispositions of ceded lands, principally located in the lands surrounding the State's harbors, such as Sand Island, the Honolulu International Airport, and Aloha Tower, pursuant to HRS § 10-13.5. See 69 Haw. at 166, 737 P.2d at 453. This court dismissed both consolidated lawsuits as nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine. See 69 Haw. at 175, 737 P.2d at 458. We concluded that the disputes, which at first glance appeared to involve statutory interpretation of HRS § 10-13.5, did not, in actuality, constitute traditional fare for the judiciary; and if the circuit court ruled on them, it would be intruding in an area committed to the legislature. It would be encroaching on legislative turf because the seemingly clear language of HRS § 10-13.5 actually provides no judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the disputes and they cannot be decided without initial policy determination[s] of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion. 69 Haw. at 173, 737 P.2d at 457 (citation omitted). This was because the legislature had acknowledged for itself, in enacting Chapter 10 (concerning the Office of Hawaiian Affairs), that it left much . . . to subsequent legislatures, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and its board of trustees to work out the appropriate boundaries of the public trust. Id. (citing S. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 784, in 1979 Senate Journal, at 1353). This court recounted that, three years later, four separate committees from a subsequent legislature admitted that there remained many uncertainties surrounding the matter of ceded lands and the disposition of revenues generated by the use of ceded lands can best be resolved by ascertaining what and where ceded lands exist, the legal and fiscal problems which may exist or arise from their use, and the effect on all parties concerned with the use and distribution of revenues generated from ceded lands. Id. The committees recommended having the State Auditor tackle the unanswered questions. See 69 Haw. at 174, 737 P.2d at 457. A year later, the State Auditor abandoned the task, concluding that the work . . . is enormous, id., and that the uncertainties surrounding the trust and funds derived therefrom cannot be resolved without further legislative action. 69 Haw. at 174, 737 P.2d at 457-58. This uncertainty led this court to conclude, as to the OHA Plaintiffs' first consolidated lawsuit, that there existed no judicially discoverable and manageable standards to resolve the issue of whether damages from illegal sand mining, or a land conveyance in lieu of damages, constituted funds derived from the public land trust under HRS § 10-3, without making an initial policy determination by the court. 69 Haw. at 174, 737 P.2d at 458. As to the OHA Plaintiffs' second consolidated lawsuit in the Yamasaki case, this court concluded that the mandate contained in HRS § 10-13.5 (that OHA receive 20% of the funds derived from the public land trust) conflicted, in the case of lands sited within harbors, such as the airport, with HRS § 261-5, which directed that all moneys received by the State in connection with the airport be used to repay State bondholders, who finance the construction of the harbors and airports. 69 Haw. at 175, 737 P.2d at 458. This court concluded that there were no judicially discoverable and manageable standards that could be employed to resolve the conflict between the mandates of HRS §§ 10-13.5 and 261-5. Id. Therefore, it remanded both consolidated lawsuits to the circuit court for the entry of dismissal orders, as both claims posed nonjusticiable political questions. Id. Fourteen years later, in Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. State , the OHA Trustees again brought suit seeking 20% of the revenues generated by the airport, which sits partially on ceded lands (and partially on federal lands), pursuant to HRS §§ 10-2 and 10-13.5, as amended by Act 304 of the 1990 legislative session. See 96 Hawai`i 388, 389, 31 P.3d 901 (2001). The legislature had responded to the Yamasaki decision by passing Act 304, which entitled OHA to 20% of the revenue (replacing the undefined and ambiguous word funds) from ceded lands, and which defined revenue as proceeds, fees, charges, rents, or other income . . . derived from any . . . activity[] that is situated upon and results from the actual use of . . . the public land trust[.] 96 Hawai`i at 391-92, 31 P.3d at 904-05. The federal government, however, had also responded to Yamasaki by passing the Forgiveness Act, in which it declared, There shall be no further payment of airport revenues for claims related to ceded lands[.] 96 Hawai`i at 393, 31 P.3d at 906. Under Act 304's own terms, any conflict with federal law would invalidate the Act, and HRS § 10-13.5 would revert to its pre-Act 304 form. 96 Hawai`i at 394, 31 P.3d at 907. This court then concluded that Act 304 did conflict with federal law, was therefore invalidated, and that HRS §§ 10-2 and 10-13.5 reverted to prior versionsthe versions that this court had already decided not to interpret because of a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards. 96 Hawai`i at 400, 31 P.3d at 913. Therefore, we dismissed the case for lack of justiciability under the political question doctrine. 96 Hawai`i at 401, 31 P.3d at 914. Both Yamasaki and OHA emphasize that when an issue is committed to the legislature (such as determining the boundaries of the ceded lands trust, the nature of the funds derived from the trust, and the interaction between statutes dealing with funds generated from activities on ceded lands), when the legislature remains uncertain about the subject matter at issue, or when resolution of the uncertainty has already been committed to the legislature, the political question doctrine bars court review of an issue.