Opinion ID: 2561872
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Apology Resolution and Related State Legislation

Text: The plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief and, alternatively, for declaratory relief, are based on their belief that the recognition in[, inter alia, the Apology Resolution] of the illegality of the transfer of lands and the ongoing reconciliation and negotiation process dramatically reinforces the State's fiduciary obligation to protect the corpus of the [p]ublic [l]ands [t]rust until an appropriate settlement is reached. Specifically, the OHA plaintiffs argue that the Congressional recognition of illegality, and its accompanying call for a `reconciliation' through a process now underway, has changed the legal landscape and restructured the rights and obligations of the State. The OHA plaintiffs further assert that the failure of the Apology Resolution to complete the process of settling [n]ative Hawaiian claims does not undercut its significance in recognizing the bases for [the plaintiffs'] claims. . . . As the [trial court explained, the Apology Resolution confirms the factual foundation for the claims that previously had been asserted. (Emphasis added.) Additionally, the OHA plaintiffs maintain that the Apology Resolution by itself does not require the State to turn over the lands to the [n]ative Hawaiian people, but it puts the State on notice that it must carefully preserve these lands so that a subsequent transfer can take place when the political branches reach an appropriate resolution of this dispute. The defendants admit that the Apology Resolution posits that the overthrow was illegal and that the [c]eded [l]ands were transferred without compensation. However, relying on the disclaimer language contained therein, the defendants assert that nothing in the Apology Resolution serves as a settlement of claims. Additionally, the defendants maintain that the Apology Resolution's historical statements provide no guideline as to what remedy, if any, is appropriate. The trial court, in analyzing the effect of the Apology Resolution on the plaintiffs' claims, stated: The Apology Resolution apologizes for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai`i on January 17, 1893, with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and for the deprivation of the inherent rights of native Hawaiians to self-determination and sovereignty. It also supports, recognizes, and commends reconciliation efforts of the State of Hawaii with native Hawaiians. Congress concluded in this enactment of the Apology Resolution, which is binding upon this court, that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai`i was in violation of treaties between the Kingdom and the United States and of international law, that it could not have been accomplished without the assistance of U.S. agents, and that the subsequent cession of these lands to the United States in 1898 was without the consent of or compensation to the [n]ative Hawaiian people of Hawai`i or their sovereign government[.] . . . . Congress also expressed its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai`i in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the [n]ative Hawaiian [p]eople, and urged the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications and to support reconciliation efforts. Although, by its terms, the 1993 Apology Resolution does not itself serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States, or result in any changes in existing law, [S.Rep. No. 103-123 (1993) at 35,] or itself create a claim, right, or cause of action, [Rice v. Cayetano, 941 F.Supp. 1529, 1546 n. 24 (D.Haw.1996), rev'd on other grounds, 528 U.S. 495 [120 S.Ct. 1044, 145 LE d.2d 1007] (2000),] it confirms the factual foundation for claims that previously had been asserted. (Emphases added.) (Footnotes omitted.) As previously stated, the Apology Resolution was adopted by both the House and the Senate, signed by then-President Clinton on November 23, 1993, and designated as Public Law No. 103-150. Generally, when a joint resolutionsuch as the one at issue in this casehas emerged from legislative deliberations and proceedings, it is, treated as law.. Ann Arbor R. Co. v. United States, 281 U.S. 658, 666, 50 S.Ct. 444, 74 L.Ed. 1098 (1930). Consequently, the rules applicable to statutory interpretation are also applicable to the Apology Resolution. Norman J. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 29:8 (6th ed.2002); 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 306 (2007). It is well-settled that, [w]hen construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself. And we must read statutory language in the context of the entire statute and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose. Coon v. City & County of Honolulu, 98 Hawai`i 233, 245, 47 P.3d 348, 360 (2002) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Additionally, the legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction, and illogicality. Keliipuleole v. Wilson, 85 Hawai`i 217, 222, 941 P.2d 300, 305 (1997) (internal brackets and citations omitted). In other words, a rational, sensible and practicable interpretation of a statute is preferred to one which is unreasonable or impracticable[.] Id. at 221-22, 941 P.2d at 304-05 (internal brackets and citation omitted). Moreover, [i]t is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts are bound, if rational and practicable, to give effect to all parts of a statute, and that no clause, sentence, or word shall be construed as superfluous, void, or insignificant if a construction can be legitimately found which will give force to and preserve all the words of the statute. Camara v. Agsalud, 67 Haw. 212, 215-16, 685 P.2d 794, 797 (1984) (citations omitted). As previously quoted, the Apology Resolution states in relevant part: Whereas[,] the Republic of Hawaii also ceded 1,800,000 acres of crown, government and public lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii, without the consent of or compensation to the [n]ative Hawaiian people of Hawaii or their sovereign government; . . . ; Whereas[,] the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum; . . . ; Whereas[,] the health and well-being of the [n]ative Hawaiian people is intrinsically tied to their deep feelings and attachment to the land; . . .; [and] Whereas[,] the [n]ative Hawaiian people are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territory, and their cultural identity in accordance with their own spiritual and traditional beliefs, customs, practices, language, and social institutions [.] Apology Resolution, Pub.L. No. 103-150, 107 Stat. 1510 (emphases added). Based on a plain reading of the above passages, we believe Congress has clearly recognized that the native Hawaiian people have unrelinquished claims over the ceded lands, which were taken without consent or compensation and which the native Hawaiian people are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations. Equally clear is Congress's express[ed] . . . commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the [n]ative Hawaiian people. Id. We agree with the OHA plaintiffs that the Apology Resolution by itself does not require the State to turn over the [ceded] lands to the [n]ative Hawaiian people[.] In our view, the Apology Resolution acknowledges only that unrelinquished claims exist and plainly contemplates future reconciliation with the United States and the State with regard to those claims. The defendants place great reliance on the Apology Resolution's disclaimer that [n]othing in [the resolution] is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States. Apology Resolution, Pub.L. No. 103-450, 107 Stat. 1510. In so doing, they essentially maintain that the plaintiffs are precluded from using the language contained therein to establish or support a claim for the return of the ceded lands. When reading the disclaimer languageas we mustin the context of the entire [Apology Resolution] and construing] it in a manner consistent with its purpose, Coon, 98 Hawai`i at 245, 47 P.3d at 360, the disclaimer provision dictates only that the Apology Resolution itself does not constitute a settlement of any of the unrelinquished claims to the ceded lands; in other words, it does not bestow upon native Hawaiians any ownership interest in the ceded lands. As we have stated, the Apology Resolution recognizes, inter alia, that native Hawaiians (1) never directly relinquished their claims to . . . their national lands to the United States and (2) are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territory. If we were to determine, as the defendants appear to urge, that the disclaimer bars the plaintiffs from relying upon the Apology Resolutiona public law in pursuing what the resolution clearly recognizestheir unrelinquished claims to the ceded lands,we would be violating one of the cardinal rules of statutory construction, namely, that this court is bound to give effect to all parts of a statute so, that no clause, sentence, or word shall be construed as superfluous, void, or insignificant. Camara, 67 Haw. at 215, 685 P.2d at 797. Subscribing to the defendants' reading of the disclaimer would render superfluous the Apology Resolution's acknowledgment of the plaintiffs' unrelinquished claims to the ceded lands. In fact, given the Apology Resolution's clear contemplation of future reconciliation, i.e., settlement, it is not surprising that Congress would include the aforementioned disclaimer after having clearly acknowledged the illegality of the overthrow, the existence of the native Hawaiians' unrelinquished claims to the ceded lands, their deep feelings and attachment to those lands, and their determination to pursue their claims. Clearly, the Apology Resolution is not per se a settlement of claims, but serves as the foundation (or starting point) for reconciliation, including the future settlement of the plaintiffs' unrelinquished claims. Such interpretation is supported by the October 23, 2000 report, issued by the United States Departments of Interior and Justice (the Departments), entitled From Mauka to Makai: The River of Justice Must Flow Freely. [15] As indicated by the trial court, the principal recommendation of the report states: It is evident from the documentation, statements, and views received during the reconciliation process undertaken by [the Departments] pursuant to [the Apology Resolution], that [n]ative Hawaiian people continue to maintain a distinct community and certain governmental structures and they desire to increase their control over their own affairs and institutions. As [a] matter of justice and equity, this report recommends that [n]ative Hawaiian people should have self-determination over their own affairs within the framework of [f]ederal law, as do Native American tribes. For generations, the United States has recognized the rights and promoted the welfare of [n]ative Hawaiians as an indigenous people within our nation through legislation, administrative action, and policy statements. To safeguard and enhance [n]ative Hawaiian self-determination over their lands, cultural resources, and internal affairs, the Departments believe Congress should enact farther legislation to clarify [n]ative Hawaiians' political status and to create a framework for recognizing a government-to-government relationship with a representative [n]ative Hawaiian governing body. (Format altered.) (Emphases added.) The above interpretation is also supported by related state legislation enacted at around or subsequent to the adoption of the Apology Resolutionspecifically, Acts 354, 359, 329, and 340. Act 354, entitled A Bill for an Act Relating to Hawaiian Sovereignty, stated in pertinent part that: On January 16, 1893, John L. Stevens, American minister in Hawai`i and friend of those supporting the annexation of Hawai`i to the United State, ordered the United States marines to invade Honolulu under the pretext of protecting American citizens and their property. Stevens thereafter recognized a new provisional government even before Queen Liliuokalani surrendered. The actions by the annexationists were condemned by President Cleveland's special envoy and the President himself. When President Cleveland refused to submit a treaty of annexation to the Senate, the new provisional government established the Republic of Hawaii which lasted until annexation in 1898. Sixty-one years later, Hawaii became a state. Until the provisional government was recognized by John L. Stevens, the Kingdom of Hawaii was recognized as an independent nation by the United States, France, and Great Britain. Many native Hawaiians and others view the overthrow of 1893 and subsequent actions by the United States, such as supporting establishment of the provisional government and later the Republic of Hawai`i, the designation of the crown and government lands as public lands, annexation, and the ceding of the public lands to the federal government without the consent of native Hawaiians, as illegal. Because the actions taken by the United States were viewed as illegal and done without the consent of native Hawaiians, many native Hawaiians feel there is a valid legal claim for reparations. Many native Hawaiians believe that the lands taken without their consent should be returned and if not, monetary reparations made, and that they should have the right to sovereignty, or the right to self-determination and self-government as do other native American peoples. The legislature has also acknowledged that the actions by the United States were illegal and immoral, and pledges its continued support to the native Hawaiian community by taking steps to promote the restoration of the rights and dignity of native Hawaiians. 1993 Haw. Sess. L. Act 354, § 1 at 999-1000 (emphases added). In Act 359, also entitled A Bill for an Act Relating to Hawaiian Sovereignty, (he legislature made findings similar to those expressed in the Apology Resolution. 1993 Haw. Sess. L. Act 359, §§ 1-2 at 1009-11. The stated purpose of Act 359 was to facilitate the efforts of native Hawaiians to be governed by an indigenous sovereign nation of their own choosing. 1993 Haw. Sess. L. Act 359, § 2 at 1010. The legislature established the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission to advise the legislature in carrying out the purposes of [the] Act. Id., § 4 at 1011. In enacting Acts 354 and 359, the legislature recognized that the indigenous people of Hawai`i were denied . . . their lands, 1993 Haw. Sess. L. Act 359, § 1(9) at 1010, and contemplated further action by the legislature to to tak[e] steps to promote the restoration of the rights and dignity of native Hawaiians. 1993 Haw. Sess. L. Act 354, § 1 at 1000. In 1997, the legislature enacted Act 329. 1997 Haw. Sess. L. Act 329, § 1 at 956-58. Act 329, which attempted to clarify the proper management and disposition of the lands subject to the public land[s] trust and the proceeds and income therefrom, and to effectuate article XII, section 6 of the Hawail Constitution, stated that: The legislature finds that the events of history relating to Hawaii and [n]ative Hawaiians, including those set forth in [the Apology Resolution] continue to contribute today to a deep sense of injustice among many [n]ative Hawaiians and others. The legislature recognizes that the lasting reconciliation so desired by all people of Hawai`i is possible only if it fairly acknowledges the past while moving into Hawaii's future. The legislature further finds that over the last few decades, the people of Hawai`i through amendments to their state constitution, the acts of their legislature, and other means, have moved substantially toward this permanent reconciliation. Foremost among these achievements have been the creation of the [O]ffice of Hawaiian [A]ffairs and the allocation by legislative action to the [O]ffice of Hawaiian [A]ffairs of substantial funds out of a portion of the public land[s] trust established by section 5(f) of the Admission Act. The overriding purpose of this Act is to continue this momentum, through further executive and legislative action in conjunction with the people of Hawai`i, toward a comprehensive, just, and lasting resolution. 1997 Haw. Sess. L. Act 329, § 1 at 956 (emphases added). Additionally, we observe that, in 1993, the legislature found that the island of Kaho'olawe[ [16] ] is of significant cultural and historic importance to the native people of Hawai`i, 1992 Haw. Sess. L. Act 340, § 1 at 803, and dictated that: Upon . . . return [of Kaho`olawe] to the State, the resources and waters of Kaho`olawe shall be held in trust as part of the public lands trust; provided that the State shall transfer management and control of the island and its waters to the sovereign native, Hawaiian entity upon its recognition by the United States and the State of Hawai`i. Id. at § 2 at 806 (codified as HRS chapter 6K). It is well-settled that native Hawaiian beneficiaries of the ceded lands trust have a right to bring suit under the Hawaii Constitution to prospectively enjoin the State from violating the terms of the ceded lands trust. Pele Defense Fund, 73 Haw. at 601, 837 P.2d at 1262. Moreover, we have previously indicated in an analogous case dealing with the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act that the State, as trustee, must adhere to high fiduciary duties normally owed by a trustee to its beneficiaries. Ahuna, 64 Haw. at 338, 640 P.2d at 1168. In describing the scope of the State's relevant fiduciary duties, this court, in Ahuna, analogized such duties to the fiduciary duties of the United States to native Americans by quoting, with approval, the words of the United States Supreme Court and stated: Under a humane and self imposed policy which has found expression in many acts of Congress and numerous decisions of this Court, [the Government] has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust. Its conduct, as disclosed in the acts of those who represent it in dealings with the Indians, should therefore be judged by the most exacting fiduciary standards. Id. at 339, 640 P.2d at 1169 (quoting Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296-97, 62 S.Ct. 1049, 86 L.Ed. 1480 (1942)) (brackets and emphases in original) (format altered). In Ahuna, we held that [t]he use of the term `most exacting fiduciary standards' imports the notion that [this] court will strictly scrutinize the actions of the government. Id. at 339, 640 P.2d at 1169. Moreover, we observed that the nature of the trust obligations of the [State] toward beneficiaries . . . may be determined by examining well-settled principles enunciated by the federal courts regarding lands set aside by Congress in trust for the benefit of other native Americans[.] Id. at 339, 640 P.2d at 1168. In particular, we cited three specific trust duties applicable to the State as trustee: (1) the obligation to administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiary; (2) the obligation that the trustee deal impartially when there is more than one beneficiary; and (3) the obligation to use reasonable skill and care to make trust property productive[.] [17] Id. at 340, 640 P.2d at 1169-70 (citations omitted). As native Hawaiians, the individual plaintiffs are clearly beneficiaries of the ceded lands trust. Additionally, OHA, which is charged with managing proceeds derived from the ceded lands and designated for the benefit of native Hawaiians, OHA II, 110 Hawai`i at 341, 133 P.3d at 770 (citation omitted), can be said to be representing the interests of the native Hawaiian beneficiaries to the ceded lands trust. The State, as trustee, is under an obligation to administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiary and to deal impartially when there is more than one beneficiary. Ahuna, 64 Haw. at 340, 640 P.2d at 1169-70 (citations omitted). As previously discussed, the Apology Resolution and the aforementioned related state legislation clearly contemplate that native Hawaiians (1) never directly relinquished their claims to their national lands to the United States, and (2) are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territory. Apology Resolution, Pub.L. No, 103-150, 107 sta. 1510. As such, we believe and, therefore, hold that the Apology Resolution and related state legislation, discussed supra, give rise to the State's fiduciary duty to preserve the corpus of the public lands trust, specifically, the ceded lands, until such time as the unrelinquished claims of the native Hawaiians have been resolved. Such duty is consistent with the State's obligation to use reasonable skill and care in managing the public lands trust and the Ahuna court's declaration that the State's conduct should . . . be judged by the most exacting fiduciary standards. Ahuna, 64 Haw. at 339, 640 P.2d at 1169 (citations and emphasis omitted). Keeping the aforementioned discussion and holding in mind, we now turn to examine the issues raised by the parties in this appealthe first of which is the defendants' contention that the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.