Opinion ID: 2582211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: This Court's Decision in OHA I

Text: This court in OHA I acknowledged that Congress does not have the power to instruct this state on how to expend its own funds, although Congress does have the authority to condition the use of federal funds.  96 Hawai`i at 397, 31 P.3d at 910 (emphases added). Assuming that the Forgiveness Act represented a valid condition on the receipt of federal airport funds, this court held that Act 304, as applied to the airport revenue sought in this case, conflicts with the provisions of the Forgiveness Act. As such, by its own terms, Act 304 is invalid. [7] Id. at 399, 31 P.3d at 912. This court went on to hold that, inasmuch as the invalidity of Act 304 reinstates the immediately preceding version of HRS § . . . 10-13.5, which then places this court precisely where it was at the time Yamasaki was decided[,] id. at 400, 31 P.3d at 913, this court is again left with no judicially manageable standards by which to discern what specific funds OHA is entitled to receive under chapter 10, without making `an initial policy determination . . . of a kind normally reserved for nonjudicial discretion.' [8] Id. at 401, 31 P.3d at 914 (citation omitted) (ellipsis in original). Accordingly, this court dismiss[ed the] case for lack of justiciability. Id. at 401, 31 P.3d at 914.