Carroll

This case stems from the Supreme Court’s recent decision, Rice v. Cayetano, holding that the ancestry classification “Hawaiian,” as provided in Article XII of the Hawaiian State Constitution, is race-based. 528 U.S. 495, 514-15 , 120 S.Ct. 1044 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2000). In Rice, the Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling that limiting voter eligibility to elect the trustees to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a state agency, to “Hawaiians” violated the Fifteenth Amendment. Id. at 517 , 120 S.Ct. 1044 . The Rice Court expressly assumed, but did not decide, the validity of the underlying administrative structure and the allocation of benefits based upon Hawaiian classification. Id. at 521-22 , 120 S.Ct. 1044 .

Patrick Barrett (“Barrett”) and John Carroll (“Carroll”) now challenge this allocation of benefits. Barrett and Carroll claim Article XII of the Hawaiian Constitution, and the statutes implementing it, violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it restricts benefits to only those classified as “native Hawaiians” 1 or “Hawaiians.” 2 Neither Barrett nor Carroll is Hawaiian or native Hawaiian. We address whether the district court properly…