Hawaiian Rights Fight Lands at Supreme Court
05/19/2011
The Hawaii Supreme Court has an opportunity to affirm — or gut — the state's promise to protect Native Hawaiians.
But based on the line of questioning justices pursued during oral arguments in State v. Pratt on Thursday morning, it seems likely that they'll limit their decision to a narrower issue of land use regulations.
Lloyd "Ikaika" Pratt was cited three different times in 2004 for being in the Kalalau Valley, part of Kauai's Na Pali State Park, in violation of state rules. He said that as a Native Hawaiian, he should be exempt from those rules because he had a constitutional right to take up residence as a caretaker.
Civil Beat summarized his case last month in a story titled "Do Native Hawaiians Have The Right To Break Rules?" The justices had questions of their own — and their answers could decide if Native Hawaiians can use their culture as a defense against criminal charges.
But the question that might well decide the case is whether the state's Department of Land and Natural Resources gave enough evidence to prove that Pratt violated the rule against being in a "closed area" under Section 13-146-4 [pdf] of Hawaii Administrative Rules and whether that rule can be blindly enforced without encroaching on the free exercise of religion.
New Supreme Court Justice Sabrina McKenna repeatedly pointed out that the case is about being in a restricted area of Kauai's remote Kalalau Valley — not about camping, not about clearing an area, not about planting crops and not about maintaining a heiau. There is a different section of state rules concerning camping without a permit, she said.
