Court Embraces Spirit of Aloha

Today the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the resolution Congress passed in 1993 to apologize for U.S. involvement in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy—a determination that remains controversial among historians—did not affect Hawaii’s sovereign authority to sell or transfer the lands that the United States had granted to the State at the time of its admission to the Union. In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court correctly explained that the words of the Apology Resolution were conciliatory and hortatory, creating no substantive rights—and indeed the resolution’s operative clauses differ starkly from those which provided compensation to, for example, the Japanese-Americans interned during World War II.

Importantly, the Court also noted that it would “raise grave constitutional concerns” if any act of Congress purported to cloud Hawaii’s title to sovereign lands so long after its admission to the Union. This last point is perhaps most important to the ongoing debate over the “Akaka Bill,” which would create a race-based entity to extract political and economic concessions from the state and federal governments on behalf of ill-defined “native Hawaiians.” It is delicious irony that Hawaii’s attorney general, Mark Bennett, an Akaka Bill supporter, secured this victory.

Just as Hawaii is now allowed to develop state lands for the benefit of all its citizens, hopefully Congress will in future refrain from inflaming racial divisions and instead treat all Hawaiians, regardless of race, with the legal equality to which they are entitled.

Further materials on the above: Here’s Cato's brief in the case, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Here are articles I wrote on the case and on the on the Akaka Bill. Here is a write-up of a debate I had at the University of Hawaii last month. Finally, here is a podcast I did for the Grassroot Institute (Hawaii’s free-market think tank) — where, among other things, I correctly predicted the Court’s vote today and the scope of its opinion.

[Cross-posted at Cato's blog.]

"It Is a Sordid Business, This Divvying Us Up by Race"

Yesterday Cato filed a brief in what will be one of the most talked-about cases in the current Supeme Court term, Ricci v. DeStefano.

In Ricci, the City of New Haven, Connecticut developed an exam for firefighters seeking promotion to command positions. The City went out of its way to ensure that the exam was race-neutral and tested only relevant skills and abilities. When the exam results came down, however, white candidates had done better than their African-American and Hispanic peers. Given the few command positions available and the City's rule that the highest scorers on an exam be promoted first, few minority firefighters would thus have been eligible for promotion. After a series of meetings and political machinations, the City refused to certify the results of the exam and promote anyone. Several of the firefighters who would have been eligible for promotion filed a lawsuit, claiming racial discrimination under Title VII.

The district court, affirmed by the court of appeals, granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the City's alleged fear of an adverse impact claim (a different type of racial discrimination claim under Title VII) -- based merely on the fact that the exam results yielded a racial disparity -- was a legitimate reason for its decision not to certify the exams.

Cato's brief, joined by Reason Foundation and the Individual Rights Foundation, points out the absurd incentives at play: if the lower court's ruling stands, employers will throw out the results of exams (or other criteria) that produce racial disparity, even if those exams are race-neutral, entirely valid, and extremely important to the employer and (as in this case) the public.

The Case will be argued April 22.

[Cross-posted at Cato's blog.]