# Prologue — Lingle v. Arakaki (No. 05-988) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0793%3A0 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Prologue - **Published:** January 1, 2006 ## Text - Supreme ¢ Cat its if No. __95-Q68rics - 0b ———————— , OFFICE OF THE CLEP! f \ In Supreme Court of the Gnited States S LINDA LINGLE, in her official capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF HAWAII, Petitioner, v. EARL F. ARAKAKT, et al., Respondents. 4 On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit . 8 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI * MARK J. BENNETT Attorney General of Hawaii - GIRARD D. LAu* CHARLEEN M. AINA Deputy Attorneys General 5 *Counsel of Record Department of the Attorney General 425 Queen Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (808) 586-1360 Counsel for Petitioner COCKLE |.AW BRIEF PRINTING CO (800! 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether state taxpayers have standing to challenge the actions of state government or state agencies that expend, or involve the use of, state taxpayer dollars, simply because they pay taxes to the state? ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS The following fourteen persons were plaintiffs- appellants in the proceedings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and, as to this petition, are the Respondents before this Court: EARL F. ARA- KAKI, EVELYN C. ARAKAKI, EDWARD U. BUGARIN, SANDRA PUANANI BURGESS, PATRICIA A. CARROLL, ROBERT M. CHAPMAN, MICHAEL Y. GARCIA, TOBY M. KRAVET, JAMES I. KUROIWA, JR., FRANCES M. NICHOLS, DONNA MALIA SCAFF, JACK H. SCAFF, ALLEN H. TESHIMA, and THURSTON TWIGG-SMITH. These Respondents will be referred to in the remainder of this petition as “Plaintiffs.” LINDA LINGLE, in her official capacity as GOVER- NOR OF THE STATE OF HAWAII, was a defendant- appellee in the Ninth Circuit, and is the Petitioner before this Court. The following six state officials were defendants- appellees in the Ninth Circuit, and, while technically Respondents before this Court (having not joined in this petition because all claims against them were dismissed below’), support this petition: GEORGINA KAWAMOTO, in her official capacity as DIRECTOR OF THE DEPART- MENT OF BUDGET AND FINANCE, RUSS SAITO, in ’ These six officials were sued to the extent their respective state departments transfer receipts from the use of ceded lands managed by their departments to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Because both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit ruled that plaintiffs had no standing (under either a state taxpayer or trust beneficiary theory) to challenge the transfer or use of such non-taxpayer monies (App. 25-32, 125-26), these officials have effectively been dismissed from the lawsuit. ili PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS - Continued his official capacity as STATE COMPTROLLER and DIRECTOR OF THE DEPART’ “NT OF ACCOUNTING AND GENERAL SERVICES, PETER YOUNG, in his official capacity as CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, SANDRA LEE KUNIMOTO, in her official capacity as DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, TED LIU, in his official capacity as DIRECTOR OF THE DEPART- MENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM, and RODNEY HARAGA, in his official capacity as DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.’ The following nine state officials were defendants- appellees in the Ninth Circuit, and, while technically Respondents before this Court (having not joined in this petition because all claims against them were dismissed belew), support this petition: MICAH KANE, Chairman, QUENTIN K. KAWANANAKOA, MAHINA MARTIN, COLIN KAALELE, TRISH MORIKAWA, MILTON PA, STUART HANCHETT, BILLIE BACLIG, and MALIA KAMAKA, in their official capacities as members of the Hawaiian Homes Commission.” * We note that the names of the various state officials, who are sued in their official capacities only, are the names of the current officeholders. The persons holding those offices have changed over the course of the litigation. * See footnote 2. We also note that many of these commissioners were erroneously left out of the original caption to the Ninth Circuit’s decision below (App. 1-2). lv PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS -— Continued The Petitioner, along with the just-listed fifteen state officials, will be referred to collectively in the remainder of this petition as “State Defendants.” The following nine officials were defendants-appellees in the Ninth Circuit, and, while technically Respondents before this Court (having not joined in this petition), are expected to file a response supporting this petition: HAU- NANI APOLIONA, Chairperson, ROWENA AKANA, DONALD CATALUNA, LINDA DELA CRUZ, DANTE CARPENTER, COLETTE Y.P. MACHADO, BOYD P. MOSSMAN, OSWALD STENDER, and JOHN D. WAI- HEE, IV, in their official capacities as trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.* THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and JOHN DOES 1 through 10, were defendants-appellees in the Ninth Circuit, and are, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 12.6, automatically designated as Respondents before this Court. : STATE COUNCIL OF HAWAIIAN HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATIONS, and ANTHONY SANG, SR., were defendant intervenors-appellees in the Ninth Circuit, and are, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 12.6, automatically designated as Respondents before this Court. HUI KAKO’O’AINA HO’OPULAPULA, BLOSSOM FEITEIRA, and DUTCH SAFFERY, were also defendant intervenors-appellees in the Ninth Circuit, and are, * See footnote 2. PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS - Continued pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 12.6, automatically designated as Respondents before this Court.’ * We note that these intervenors were erroneously left out of the original caption to the Ninth Circuit’s decision below (App. 1-2). TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PREG BB ccvcvcsccorscevescoccveresesscsessosesevoors i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ............... cee il ee Ce CT SIE citnrhacnterrnserisreincittasseemeecssenarenn vi TAA Ce BAF EOE BED ccievccesizeccesesisenivevcccsecenosneees Vii OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW......00000000 ee. 1 NT IE icc tnivcdneaes Gikeadlcepristtanssvintacloabeesbeetevisieniie 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES a dh ciieskoictanisiesiteieccenicnnstenus ass acowsnbechaibiogubhamianiel 2 I. The issue of whether state taxpayers have standing to challenge the actions of state gov- ernment simply because they pay taxes to the state presents an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by the United States Supreme Court................ 9 Il. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling allowing state taxpayer standing conflicts with the decisions of at least five other circuits ................ccsseeeeseeees 16 Ill. Even if state taxpayers could satisfy the requirements of Article III, prudential con- cerns dictate dismissal of state taxpayer suits_ because the asserted harm is a “generalized grievance” shared in_ substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens......... 18 ROE sisi ciisinenvantovectestnidipscinsntaineinicadancibenadiaites 20 Vil TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Arakaki v. Cayetano, 198 F. Supp.2d 1165 (D. Haw. TE BE A i vscthtsintavisecsviciouciinsielvscivalicitabtveteediin 1 Arakaki v. Cayetano, 299 F. Supp.2d 1090 (D. Haw. SO ©. TOGO faissiciheteticciocmaitisdi laid as 1,6 Arakaki v. Cayetano, 299 F. Supp.2d 1107 (D. Haw. ieee LE NE? vk cadinwincidcdnabendahidise latin intend again 1 Arakaki v. Lingle, 299 F. Supp.2d 1114 (D. Haw. PEG, FS, NE iievtensiediirrcsnssintiin aac 1,6 Arakaki v. Lingle, 299 F. Supp.2d 1129 (D. Haw. RROCUIN DB, THOT iiadiiiretinecticiceussvssicaittipaatiniprsntuoes 1 Arakaki v. Lingle, 305 F. Supp.2d 1161 (D. Haw. Nh 3 Fe wink escaisicitcn cde ee 1,7 Arakahi v. Lingle, 423 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 4 FEE xisctasnsciccsschiutekegeneati einen 1, 6, 7, 14-15 ASARCO, Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (1969) ......c0000: sicaddacgadeihahanoedakpabaeuncactnenid 6, 8, 10-11, 14-19 Baker v. Carr, 369 US. Pe Ce kite 13 Bd. Of Educ. v. New York State Teachers, 60 F.3d TOG (SOG Cae A esccinoriscini ci aenene 16-17 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003).............. 6 City Of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) ....... 10, 12 Colorado Taxpayers Union v. Romer, 963 F.2d 1394 CRONE Ci Bi aicvcicinsncdiccideenisicicoien ade 12, i3, 17 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 1268. Ct. 36 CD svi ecriliticimntetnc dag eee 14, 20, 21 Doremus v. Bd. of Educ. of Hawthorne, 342 U.S. 429 (1952) .......... ; candde wee dvehussidleccneumicucelde balan ds 11 Vili TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued Page Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)>....... 11 Henderson v. Stalder, 287 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2002).......... 17 Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi, 741 F.2d 1169 (1984)....7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17 Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, 539 U.S. 654 (2008)..............00. 8, 15-16 Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 Te aA. i deuawernsvwuasvecsoassnscenest 13 Htizzo Uv. Goode, 423 U.S. S62 (197G)..........ccccercocccceccssecceees 12 Tarsney v. O’Keefe, 225 F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 2000)............ 12,17 Taub v. Commonwealth Of Kentucky, 842 F.2d 912 (6th a ans idcci ec cddebesciereevenns 12, 13, 17 United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974)....... 12-13 Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464 Ts ss sa yedacenvicuuudtersaunedsonreesvenes 13 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) ............ cece eeeeeee 18, 19 Wilkins v. Cuno, 126 S. Ct. 26 (2005)..............000... 14, 20, 21 Women’s Emergency Network v. Bush, 323 F.3d 937 Nee on cuca punwansebedwsetreriteceesneness 18 - CONSTITUTIONS United States Constitution, Amendment I Ne NE cn coc ecedcvncucsevesevencccesevedesecvens 17 United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1 (Equal Protection Clause) .................... ates 2,5 United States Constitution, Article II], ier di ccb ck cvecihiusecsvueveve vues 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 18, 20 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued Page Constitution of the State of Hawaii, Article XII, RR NO BOP A a ee EA RON Te SARA 2, 3, 4 Constitution of the State of Hawaii, Article XII, TS ETE NE LEAR IEEE ED ES OUI UM Be 2, 3, 4 Constitution of the State of Hawaii, Article XII, IONE Oo icactniccisvcccdsaucotecsamenebicabnaaaiis east oaas 2,3,4 Constitution of the State of Hawaii, Article XII, I iii ic detains daonmcdgnaeitacie ancy iar ater ee 2,4 Constitution of the State of Hawaii, Article XII, SERRATE ae See ic NA Te He AU LR OE ge AY LIN AST 2,4 Constitution of the State of Hawaii, Article XII, SE LER OT LIE G POT AE MLE Nad rs eR DE OP SS 2,4 STATUTES The Admission Act |73 Stat. 4], Section 4.........0000.00.000... 2,3 The Admission Act |73 Stat. 4], Section 5(b) .........000000000000. 2 The Admission Act |73 Stat. 4], Section 5(f)...........0.0000.. 2,4 rR EAS Bs RRR CE Pra ieee Ra rts ec RO Peon thes See 2 DIDO Be obits sa ies cae 8 , BES Lake iO |} SRR TRE sRD cee mieues mere EDF oF ec acony. N07 8 Be TF TG Ae Pe vaniceceitacace baie cecd fas oie caches vce 8 ee EE ees Oe OEE waka vaiendsictdcwaudlecibecaumdatcs dlctpanibe haces 8 Be EB ee vdeo ices ea dastionataiaceincctegdee crear cain aed aed 8 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 42 Stat. 108 CRORE C Ree PF ivévincecdcceccckedbiantacne ee: Zz, a, 4 6 7 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (“HHCA”), § 201... 2, 3, 4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued : Page Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (*“HHCA”), § 202.......... 4 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (“HHCA”), § 203.......... 4 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (“HHCA”), § 204.......... 4 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (“HHCA”), § 207.......... 4 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (“HHCA”), § 208.......... 4 Se: Se, Ces GIN BP Gi os eciscnatedinectedsscokosaaoncacness 3,5 I 3 a BREUER STRODE BONDE tek MEE Nae OR 3 I SI ON aa as cab acenleeenleoneddiiwens 3 8 A ten Pee aD ER mere ERO RRO e RAE 3 Haw. Rev. Stat. 8 RAD TU cena sae Orbs De Ree Ree EC MarR 3 ES Tig Sa CEASA A Nn ge Nar ROI ome 3 Bc ei ee 3 ne MIN TU Oe I ids ao scess cosdedcndiccenoundnidacessanetiuboniatde 3 Sn AR 3 et Tt Se i a as 3 Pr me I, Te i ea ce 3 RULES Pe ee Ss Be SE isi cakstiiseipvicei pusedoeindeciaasabveliaane 8 et | REE ene | Saaleaiabenaninan dadligeealbeis 9, 16, 18 BN ae es ee ieslesiikinesraceicdshecnessitepetsonpmibecsatece edi dines 9, 15, 16 TS Re | SRS Sarena SEPM OUR UR ISN MOS mT Madar iv-v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES -— Continued Page I, Sah ia IID a sadistic nck veka hues echeadaddebadsapsicereemsivineseene 2 Ns Wares I SEs dahivicioncscasshhecincacicicealenciebycbedetedidnesinashesins 2 OTHER AUTHORITIES Staudt, “Taxpayers In Court: A Systematic Study of a (Misunderstood) Standing Doctrine,” 52 Emory Be FE eda eebtuicd eases aebaduinnp hadi ton tard elioukpvehiskeeits 15 Stern, Gressman, Shapiro & Geller, Supreme Court IE Ee RI avis nck cadets dace aks 21 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0793%3A0. Public record. Not legal advice.