Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Vows to Defy SCOTUS in Scathing 91-Page Ruling

By John Damon | Just The News Iowa

A Hawaii Supreme Court justice has issued an extraordinary 91-page opinion that not only overturned a decades-old criminal conviction but also launched a blistering attack on the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing its conservative majority of undermining constitutional rights and democracy. The ruling has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, including Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan, who called it 'unhinged.'

What Did the Hawaii Supreme Court Rule?

Justice Todd Eddins authored the majority opinion in State v. Granillo, a case involving a man convicted in 1990 of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman on Maui. The court ordered a new trial after concluding that hair and fiber evidence presented by an FBI expert relied on forensic science that has since been discredited. However, it was Eddins' eight-page critique of the U.S. Supreme Court that drew national attention.

Why Did the Justice Attack the U.S. Supreme Court?

Eddins argued that Hawaii's Constitution provides stronger protections than the federal Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. He wrote that state courts should not look to the Roberts court when interpreting their own constitutions. '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.'

The justice accused the Supreme Court of abandoning landmark civil rights principles, specifically referencing Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which ended racial segregation. He compared the court's originalist approach to the discredited Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) decisions. 'The Court that now defines federal due process does not honor the work of 1954. It revives the work of 1857. The work of 1896,' Eddins wrote.

What Specific Decisions Did He Criticize?

Eddins pointed to several landmark Supreme Court rulings as evidence of weakened protections, including:

• Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion
• Citizens United v. FEC, on campaign finance
• Rucho v. Common Cause, on partisan gerrymandering
• Trump v. United States, on presidential immunity
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which expanded Second Amendment protections

Eddins accused the Roberts 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.'

How Did Legal Experts React?

The opinion quickly drew criticism from legal observers who said it was highly unusual for a state supreme court to devote so much space to attacking the U.S. Supreme Court. Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan wrote on X: 'The Court issues an unhinged attack on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. I haven't ever seen something like this. And it's not good.'

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley similarly described the opinion as 'devoid of judicial restraint and decorum.' Turley wrote on X: '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.'

What Is the Context for This Ruling?

The opinion comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court handed Hawaii a major loss in Wolford v. Lopez, striking down the state's so-called 'vampire rule.' In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled Hawaii could not require gun owners to get a property owner's permission before carrying a gun into businesses and other private property open to the public. Eddins, appointed to the Hawaii Supreme Court in 2020 by former Democratic Gov. David Ige, has a history of progressive judicial activism.

What Does This Mean for Iowa?

While the ruling is specific to Hawaii, it raises broader questions about judicial overreach and the relationship between state and federal courts. Iowa Solicitor General Wessan's criticism underscores concerns among conservative legal observers that some state courts are moving to defy federal authority. For Iowans, this case highlights the importance of judicial appointments and the ongoing debate over constitutional interpretation, particularly on issues like gun rights, religious freedom, and parental involvement in education.

As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the Hawaii ruling may serve as a rallying point for conservatives who argue that activist judges are undermining the rule of law. The decision also reinforces the need for strong, principled judges who respect the Constitution and the separation of powers.