Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 31, Number 1, 1 January 2014 — KEALOHA V. MACHADO State Supreme Gourt upholds dismissal of blood-quantum suit [ARTICLE]

KEALOHA V. MACHADO State Supreme Gourt upholds dismissal of blood-quantum suit

By Garett Kamemoto n a unanimous ruling that essentially preserves the status quo, the state Supreme Court ruled trustees of the Office of Hawaiian have "broad discretion" on how to spend money to benefit native Hawaiians. A lawsuit challenged OHA's funding for the Akaka bill, Nā Pua No'eau education program, Native Hawaiian Legal Corp. and Alu Like Inc.'s social services program. Plaintiffs Samuel Kealoha Jr., Virgil Day, Josiah Hoohuli and Patrick Kahawaiolaa claimed OHA could only spend money from the Puhlie Land Trust in the "sole interest" of native Hawaiians, defined as those individuals of one-half or more Hawaiian blood. The programs in question served Hawaiians regardless of blood quantum. OHA had contended that when it decides to use its money for the betterment of native Hawaiians, other Hawaiians with less blood quantum should also be allowed to benefit. The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Kealoha v. Machado case in April, and the court made its ruling in early December. "The decision settles onee and for all whether OHA ean create or fund programs to serve Hawaiians with any level of blood quantum," said Office of Hawaiian Affairs Attorney Robert Klein. Kamana'opono Crabbe, Ka Pouhana, Chief Executive Officer of OHA, added: "This ruling is important validation for our efforts to improve conditions for Hawaiians. In our experience, favorable rulings don't benefit only one class of Hawaiians but benefits everyone." The ruling means OHA ean eonhnue funding programs such as those challenged in the lawsuit. A similar lawsuit has already been tumed away in federal court in a case called Day v. Apoliona. The U.S. District Court andNinth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of OHA. The appeals court wrote in its 2010 opinion that the expenditures on the four programs were "within the trustees' broad discretion to serve trust purposes." The court said the state could have more restrictive rules on the way trustees spend trust funds. The state Supreme Court has now ruled OHA's use of trust funds falls within its trustees' discretion and therefore is legal. "This is a landmark decision," said OHA Chairperson Colette Machado. "The issue has now been decided in both the state and federal court. This is a great day for all Hawaiians." ■