Judge strikes down blood quantum lawsuit

By Blaine Fergerstrom / Ka Wai Ola

On June 20, U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway again ruled against a group of five plaintiffs who sued the Office of Hawaiian Affairs three years ago in a case known as Day vs. Apoliona. The group claimed that OHA should not serve anyone with less than 50 percent Hawaiian blood, as mandated by certain provisions of the Public Land Trust established under the Admission Act.

OHA has strived to serve all Hawaiians, regardless of blood quantum, since its creation by the 1978 Hawai'i Constitutional Convention.

Mollway ruled that the Admission Act “is not so restrictive” as claimed by the plaintiffs and granted summary judgment to the Trustees of OHA, saying that they are “exercising their reasonable fiduciary judgment in determining how to further the purposes of the trust.”

OHA Chairperson Haunani Apoliona was pleased with the ruling, saying, “The Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs are elected to do productive work on behalf of our beneficiaries. We remain committed to that objective.”

The plaintiffs originally brought the suit in 2005. In 2006, Mollway rejected their claims, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case last year. However, the 9th Circuit did not rule on the merits of the case, only deciding that it should be further heard.

In her 35-page decision, Mollway posed a number of possible scenarios involving native Hawaiians (those with 50 percent or more blood quantum), and those with less than 50 percent, identified in the ruling as Hawaiians.

The judge asked if the plaintiffs would object to an OHA program that assists Hawaiians with medical birth expenses if the birth mother had 25 percent blood quantum and the father had 75 percent, meaning the child would be 50 percent.

“The child would be native Hawaiian, but treatment during the pregnancy would benefit not only the native Hawaiian child, but also the Hawaiian mother. Would plaintiffs object to the benefits flowing to the Hawaiian mother?” Mollway wrote.

“The court presents these scenarios only to highlight that the logical result of Plaintiffs' position could ultimately be detrimental to native Hawaiians,” Mollway wrote.