A Hawaii Supreme Court justice has ignited a firestorm of criticism after using a routine criminal case to launch a blistering, 91-page attack on the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority, accusing the nation's highest court of abandoning constitutional principles and advancing a political agenda. The extraordinary opinion has drawn sharp rebukes from legal observers, including Iowa's top solicitor general, who called it 'unhinged.'
What Did the Hawaii Justice Say About SCOTUS?
Justice Todd Eddins, appointed by former Democratic Governor David Ige in 2020, authored the majority opinion in State v. Granillo, a case involving a 1990 kidnapping and sexual assault conviction on Maui. While the court ordered a new trial due to discredited forensic evidence, Eddins devoted roughly eight pages to a scathing critique of the Roberts Court.
'When six justices walk away from those they are supposed to protect, state constitutions hold the line,' Eddins wrote. 'That is not defiance. That is the design.'
Eddins argued that the U.S. Supreme Court has abandoned landmark civil rights principles, specifically referencing Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which ended racial segregation. He compared the current court's originalist approach to the discredited reasoning in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).
'The Court that now defines federal due process does not honor the work of 1954,' Eddins wrote. 'It revives the work of 1857. The work of 1896.'
Why Is This Opinion Drawing National Criticism?
Legal experts across the country have condemned the opinion as unprecedented and inappropriate for a state supreme court ruling.
'The Court issues an unhinged attack on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court,' Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan wrote on X. 'I haven't ever seen something like this. And it's not good.'
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley echoed that sentiment, describing the opinion as 'devoid of judicial restraint and decorum.'
'The Hawaii Supreme Court just issued a truly shocking opinion that unleashed a torrent of rage and recrimination against the majority of the United States Supreme Court, including suggesting that they are de facto racists,' Turley wrote.
What Specific SCOTUS Rulings Did Eddins Target?
Eddins singled out several of the Roberts Court's most consequential decisions, including:
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (overturning federal abortion rights)
- Citizens United v. FEC (campaign finance)
- Rucho v. Common Cause (partisan gerrymandering)
- Trump v. United States (presidential immunity)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (Second Amendment protections)
Eddins accused the court of adopting a 'colorblind' approach to the equal protection clause that ignores its original purpose of protecting formerly enslaved Black Americans. 'The Roberts Court sees only white,' he wrote. 'It refuses to acknowledge who the Equal Protection Clause was written to protect.'
He further claimed the court 'systematically dismantles democratic safeguards, steamrolls constitutional liberties, and tramples human dignity.'
What Does This Mean for Iowa and Federal-State Relations?
The opinion comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court handed Hawaii a major defeat in Wolford v. Lopez, striking down the state's so-called 'vampire rule' that required gun owners to get a property owner's permission before carrying a firearm into businesses open to the public. The 6-3 decision was a clear win for Second Amendment advocates.
For Iowans, the Hawaii ruling raises questions about the growing tension between state courts and the federal judiciary. While Iowa's courts have generally respected U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the Hawaii opinion signals a potential trend of state-level judicial resistance to conservative rulings.
'A court that systematically dismantles democratic safeguards... does not chart the course for the Hawaiʻi Constitution,' Eddins wrote, effectively declaring that Hawaii will not follow U.S. Supreme Court interpretations it disagrees with.
FAQ: Understanding the Hawaii Supreme Court Ruling
Is it common for state supreme courts to attack the U.S. Supreme Court?
No. Legal experts say it is highly unusual for a state supreme court opinion to devote so much space to criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court. Such attacks are typically reserved for dissenting opinions, not majority rulings.
What is the 'vampire rule' the Supreme Court struck down?
The 'vampire rule' was a Hawaii law requiring gun owners to obtain permission from property owners before carrying firearms into businesses and other private property open to the public. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez.
How did Justice Eddins get appointed to the Hawaii Supreme Court?
Justice Todd Eddins was appointed to the Hawaii Supreme Court in 2020 by former Democratic Governor David Ige. He previously served as a judge on the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals.
Bottom Line
The Hawaii Supreme Court's extraordinary attack on the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority has sparked a national debate about judicial overreach and the limits of state court authority. With Iowa's solicitor general among those condemning the opinion, the ruling highlights growing divisions between state and federal judiciaries on key constitutional issues.
