Arakaki v. Cayetano

324 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps filed a civil action against Ds challenging the constitutionality of race-based privileges. Ps challenge the exclusive benefits given to Hawaiians and native Hawaiians in that they are racially discriminatory and violate the Equal Protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. They also allege that, as beneficiaries of § 5(f) of the Hawaii Admission Act's public land trust, the State and HHC/DHHL discriminate against them, which constitutes a breach of trust. The district court granted the proposed defendants-intervenors State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Association (SCHHA), and Anthony Sang, Sr.'s (Sang) Motion to Intervene. The SCHHA is an organization of native Hawaiian HHC homestead lessee associations. Sang is a lessee. H filed its motion to intervene. alleging two interests: (1) to ensure continued receipt of benefits for native Hawaiians; and (2) to limit the class of eligible beneficiaries to only native Hawaiians, at the exclusion of the broader Hawaiian class. H sought to raise as a defense to its receipt of benefits that, absent discrimination by the United States, it should be entitled to tribal status, and its benefits scrutinized under rational basis review. The district court dismissed for lack of standing Ps' breach of the public land trust claims. The only claims remaining were Ps' equal protection challenges asserted as taxpayers against the direct expenditures of tax revenues by the legislature. The court denied H's motion to intervene, both as a matter of right and permissively. Since P's public land trust claims were dismissed, H had no significantly protectable interest. The court reasoned that since H's intervention to assert additional claims of breaches of public land trusts, specifically that benefits should be limited to only native Hawaiians, was not raised by existing parties and clearly separable from P's remaining equal protection challenge, nothing prevented H from filing its own breach of trust suit against D to claim benefits should be allocated to only native Hawaiians. In relation to the equal protection claims, H failed to demonstrate that Ds would not adequately represent their interests. Ds and H had the same ultimate objective, and Ds have demonstrated that they will vigorously oppose P's challenges to the provision of benefits to native Hawaiians. It denied permissive intervention because H sought to interject new issues into this action beyond the scope of P’s claims. H appealed.