Arakaki

Arakaki v. Cayetano

Good Law
324 F.3d 1078·2003 WL 1635184
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 31, 2003No. 02-16269California3,994 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hug, J.

Josiah Hoohuli and other native Hawaiians (collectively “Hoohuli”) seek to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the provision of benefits by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (“OHA”), the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (“DHHL”), and the Hawaiian Homes Commission (“HHC”) to native Hawaiians 1 and Hawaiians. 2 Hoo-huli, lessees of Hawaiian homestead lands or applicants for such leases, seek intervention on the grounds that they have an interest in continuing to receive benefits as native Hawaiians, and an interest to stop the provision of benefits to Hawaiians by limiting the eligibility to only native Hawaiians.

We address whether the district court erred in denying Hoohuli’s motion to intervene as a matter of right.

I

On March 4, 2002, Plaintiffs Arakaki et al. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a civil action against the State of Hawaii and various state agencies, challenging the constitutionality of race-based privileges. This suit follows closely on the heels of the Supreme* Court’s recent Rice v. Cayetano decision, which held that limiting voter eligibility to elect the trustees to the OHA to members of the racial classifications Hawaiian and native Hawaiian violated the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.