The Hawaii Supreme Court’s Defiant Assault on Constitutional Order
In a striking display of judicial arrogance and overreach, the Hawaii Supreme Court has openly stated its intention to defy the United States Supreme Court, treating the nation’s highest court as a mere partisan obstacle to its progressive agenda. Justice Todd Eddins, writing for the majority in State v. Granillo, took a routine criminal evidence ruling and turned it into an eight-page critique of the Roberts Court. He accused it of weakening democracy, abandoning civil rights, and reviving the troubling legacies of Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. This goes beyond mere disagreement; it represents a rogue state court disregarding the constitutional hierarchy that holds this Republic together.
Eddins, along with the justices who supported him, displayed a striking lack of judicial restraint by essentially declaring that Hawaii’s constitution is superior and independent, not bound by federal precedent when it aligns with their ideological preferences. “When six justices abandon those they are meant to protect, state constitutions stand firm,” Eddins wrote. He criticized decisions such as Dobbs, presidential immunity, and Bruen as examples of a Court that “overrides what Congress enacted” and “overrides the choices made by the people,” all “to serve its own interests.”
Legal scholar Jonathan Turley accurately criticized this outburst. He described the opinion as “devoid of judicial restraint and decorum” and pointed out that 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, in effect, racists.” Turley’s critique underscores the dangerous precedent set by justices who prioritize political agendas over careful jurisprudence.
The consequences of this judicial decision are significant and damaging.
By explicitly rejecting the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court on issues of constitutional interpretation, Hawaii’s highest court is inviting chaos into the legal system. Lower courts in the state may now feel empowered to selectively adopt federal precedents or ignore them entirely, resulting in a fragmented justice system in which the application of the law varies by location rather than by principle. This undermines the uniformity essential to a federal republic, where the Supreme Court serves as the final authority to prevent states from becoming unconstitutional strongholds.
Such defiance undermines public trust in the judiciary. When state justices accuse their federal counterparts of racism, arrogance, and undermining democratic safeguards—while conveniently ignoring the originalist methodology that grounds decisions in the Constitution’s text and history—they contribute to the very polarization they criticize. Citizens observe a court that equates a colorblind application of the Equal Protection Clause with neglecting historical injustices, as Eddins suggested when he claimed the Roberts Court “sees only white.” This inflammatory rhetoric politicizes the judiciary and invites similar defiance from other states, potentially disrupting the delicate balance of federalism.
The practical implications extend beyond mere rhetoric.
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wolford v. Lopez, which rejected Hawaii’s restrictive gun laws, Eddins’ opinion appears to be driven more by ideology than by principled analysis. By indicating that Hawaii will pursue its own approach to due process, equal protection, and individual rights, the court inadvertently invites federal intervention, leading to prolonged litigation and creating uncertainty for defendants, law enforcement, and everyday citizens. Criminal convictions, regulatory frameworks, and civil disputes will face endless, opportunistic challenges as parties exploit the divide between state and federal law. This situation will harm businesses and residents, as Hawaii risks becoming a legal outlier, deterring investment and creating a perception of instability.
This episode highlights the significant danger posed by activist state courts that operate outside their intended role. The U.S. Constitution establishes a hierarchical system to prevent such fragmentation. Article VI’s Supremacy Clause designates federal law, including interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, as the “supreme Law of the Land.” State judges are sworn to uphold this law. However, when they treat Supreme Court decisions as merely advisory or illegitimate—disregarding landmark rulings on issues like abortion, gun rights, elections, and executive power—they undermine this foundational principle.
Judges like Eddins and his like-minded colleagues, who display extreme partisanship, reveal that they prioritize their ideological beliefs over their judicial responsibilities. They are willing to sacrifice legal stability to promote their vision of “stronger” state protections that conveniently align with left-wing priorities.
The challenges increase in a divided nation. If every state supreme court with a progressive majority can disregard U.S. Supreme Court precedents that they oppose, the promise of being “one nation under law” disappears. Conservative states might then react in a similar manner, leading to a detrimental cycle where constitutional rights become subject to change based on local politics. This situation is the opposite of what the Framers intended, as they established a single national tribunal with ultimate interpretive authority to ensure consistency and adherence to the Constitution.
In conclusion, rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court—whether one agrees with them or not—must be regarded as the law of the land. This is not a blind adherence to the nine justices in Washington; rather, it reflects a commitment to the Constitution’s framework, which prevents chaos and preserves the Union. Disagreement should be expressed in dissenting opinions, academic scholarship, and the democratic process—not through defiant statements that undermine the very system they are meant to uphold.
The justices in Hawaii have crossed a troubling line. Their actions threaten the legal cohesion of the Republic and require immediate condemnation and, if necessary, corrective measures to ensure that no state court is above the Supreme Court.
The rule of law can only endure when all courts, both state and federal, adhere to this essential principle.
