Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 23, Number 5, 1 May 2007 — OHA prevails in suit against Hawaiian benefits [ARTICLE]

OHA prevails in suit against Hawaiian benefits

By Derek Ferrar | Public lnformatinn Specialist On April 16, U.S. District Iudge Susan Oki Mollway issued a ruling that, for all intents and purposes, awarded final victory to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in the five-year-old suit that had sought the abolishment of government benefits to Native Hawaiians as being unconstitutionally "race-based." Mollway's ruling confrrmed the earlier finding by a federal appeals court that the plaintiffs in the Arakaki v. Lingle case, pressing suit simply as state taxpayers, had no "standing" to bring their elaim. Attorney Sherry P. Broder, who represented OHA in the case, called Mollway's order "great," saying that "the federal courts have concluded that these plaintiffs are not hurt by the activities of OHA, and thus they do not have standing to bring a legal ehallenge." In reviewing the issues with the parties in the case, Mollway did agree to allow the plaintiffs several weeks to try to eonhnue the suit on different grounds before making her ruling final, but it is unlikely that such a move would succeed. However, H. William Burgess, the attorney for the plaintiffs in the case, said that he would seek to file such an amended complaint. "It ain't over yet," Burgess told the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. OHA Chairperson Haunani Apoliona said that Mollway's ruling offered cause for celebration, but added that "we are not naive enough to think that those who seek to litigate against Hawaiians are going to stop." Apoliona said that OHA is thankful to its attorneys for winning the case, and especially to state Attorney General Mark Bennett, who identified a Supreme Court ruling on taxpayer standing that eventually led to the Arakaki suit's dismissal. Based on that high court ruling, OHA attorney Broder said, the U.S. Court of Appeals had found that the Arakaki plaintiffs had suffered no individualized injury as taxpayers, and that their concerns were instead poliheal grievances inappropriate for court determination, and best left for See OHA PREVAILS on pagE 07