On September 12, 2025, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court voided a 1922 deed restriction that forced land in Hilo to be used only “for Church purposes.” The justices concluded that such a condition violated article I, section 4 of the Hawai‘i Constitution, which prohibits laws “respecting an establishment of religion” .
The constitutional language itself dates back to Hawai‘i’s 1950 Constitutional Convention. Delegates modeled the clause on the federal Establishment Clause, declaring they were “in full accord” with it and wanted to “avail[]” the state of federal court interpretations . When Hawai‘i formally became a state in 1959, the constitution went into effect with this language intact. It has not been substantively amended since .
The timing of Hawai‘i’s constitutional adoption is telling. Just three years before the 1950 convention, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Everson v. Board of Education (1947), a landmark case that made clear that the Establishment Clause applied to the states. Everson articulated that “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another” . That case, along with McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) and Zorach v. Clauson (1952), framed the constitutional landscape that Hawai‘i’s framers had in mind when they wrote article I, section 4 .
In the present case, Justice Lisa Ginoza’s majority opinion struck down the deed restriction, but it was Justice Todd Eddins’ concurrence, joined by Justices Sabrina McKenna and Clyde Devens, that explicitly linked Hawai‘i’s constitutional history to its modern interpretation. Eddins contrasted Hawai‘i’s establishment clause, rooted in the Everson era of strict separation, with the Roberts Court’s more recent pivot in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), which adopted a “history and tradition” test for federal Establishment Clause disputes .
Eddins quoted Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in Kennedy, which warned that the Roberts Court had “reject[ed] longstanding concerns surrounding government endorsement of religion and replac[ed] the standard for reviewing such questions with a new ‘history and tradition’ test” . He argued that Hawai‘i need not, and should not, follow that narrowing path. Instead, he emphasized that Hawai‘i’s constitution—drafted and ratified at a moment when Everson defined the establishment principle—commits the state to a firmer separation of church and state than the current federal standard allows.
By grounding the ruling in Hawai‘i’s constitutional text and history, the court reaffirmed its independence from federal shifts. The deed restriction, Eddins reasoned, exemplified unconstitutional state sponsorship of religion: the government mandated land be used for religious purposes or forfeited. That, he concluded, is precisely what the Hawai‘i Constitution forbids.
With this decision, the deed restriction is void under state law. Because the ruling rests solely on Hawai‘i’s constitution, no federal appeal is expected.
Case link: Hilo Bay Marina, LLC & Keaukaha Ministry, LLC v. State of Hawai‘i, No. SCAP-23-0000310 — decision PDF
Tags: Hawai‘i Supreme Court, Establishment Clause, Everson v. Board of Education, Roberts Court, concurring opinion
AI Disclaimer: This summary was prepared with the assistance of AI using the official opinion in SCAP-23-0000310. It should not be relied on as legal advice.