Opinion ID: 870455
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Public Interest Exception to the Mootness Doctrine

Text: Kaleikini argues that the public interest exception applies here because the question presented in this case involves two important issues: (1) the rights of Native Hawaiians; and (2) access to the courts. This court has stated that, [w]hen analyzing the public interest exception, [it] look[s] to (1) the public or private nature of the question presented, (2) the desirability of an authoritative determination for future guidance of public officers, and (3) the likelihood of future recurrence of the question. Hamilton, 119 Hawai`i at 6-7, 193 P.3d at 844-45 (citation omitted) (some brackets in original). This court recently examined the public interest exception in Hamilton and stated that: [T]he cases in this jurisdiction that have applied the public interest exception have focused largely on political or legislative issues that affect a significant number of Hawai`i residents. For example, in Doe [v. Doe, 116 Hawai`i 323, 172 P.3d 1067 (2007)], we held that the public interest exception applied because it was in the public's interest for this court to review the family court's ruling that Hawaii's grandparent visitation statute [was] unconstitutional on its face. Id. at 327, 172 P.3d at 1071. Additionally, in Kaho'ohanohano v. State, 114 Hawai`i 302, 162 P.3d 696 (2007), this court held that the subject appeal was of a public nature because the outcome would affect all state and county employees. Id. at 333, 162 P.3d at 727. Likewise, in Right to Know Committee v. City & County of Honolulu, 117 Hawai`i 1, 175 P.3d 111 (App.2007), the ICA held that the question presented was of a public nature because the issue whether the City council must conduct its business in full view of the public and in compliance with the Sunshine Law was more public in nature than private. Id. at 9, 175 P.3d at 119. Id. at 7, 193 P.3d at 845. As indicated by Kaleikini, the issue presented herethe availability of judicial review of decision relating to the removal of Native Hawaiian burial sitesis of great public importance. In amending chapter 6E to include, inter alia, the relevant sections pertaining to Native Hawaiian burial sites, the legislature specifically recognized that [a]ll human skeletal remains and burial sites within the State are entitled to equal protection under the law regardless of race, religion, or cultural origin. The public has a vital interest in the proper disposition of the bodies of its deceased persons, which is in the nature of a sacred trust for the benefit of all [.] 1990 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 306, § 1 at 956 (emphasis added). The legislature further found that native Hawaiian traditional prehistoric and unmarked burials are especially vulnerable and often not afforded the protection of law which assures dignity and freedom from unnecessary disturbance. Id. Such legislative pronouncements evince a recognition of the public importance of the issue presented here, i.e., the process of deciding to remove previously identified Native Hawaiian burial sites. Thus, the question presented here, like in Right to Know, is of a public nature. Second, as reflected in the circuit court's statements (1) indicating confusion surrounding the issue whether an appellant may seek review of an agency's denial of a request for a contested case hearing and (2) suggesting the need for an authoritative answer from this court regarding the issue, it would seem desirable for this court to provide an authoritative determination providing future guidance for public officials. Lastly, with respect to the third prong, the likelihood of future recurrence of the question seems high inasmuch as it seems probable that iwi will continue to be unearthed at future construction projects. Accordingly, we conclude that the public interest exception applies to the case at bar. [19] We now turn to discuss the merits of Kaleikini's contentions on appeal.