State Supreme Courts Resource

4 Democrats, 1 Republican

• HAWAII CONST. Art. I, § 12. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted. The court may dispense with bail if reasonably satisfied that the defendant or witness will appear when directed, except for a defendant charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment.
• This has been interpreted by the Hawai’i Supreme Court to be identical to the federal Eighth Amendment, despite ban on “cruel or unusual” punishments (as opposed to federal “cruel and unusual).

• “The courts of Hawai’i have thus far declined to recognize a direct private cause of action for violation of rights guaranteed under the state constitution.” Galario v. Adewundmi, No. 07-00159 DAE-KSC, 2009 WL 1227874, at *11 (D. Haw. May 1, 2009), rev’d in part, 531 F. App’x 830 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Makanui v. Dep’t of Educ., 6 Haw. App. 397, 721 P.2d 165, 170 n. 2 (Haw. Ct. App. 1986) (“We do not decide whether Hawaii recognizes a cause of action for damages for deprivation of rights under the state’s constitution or laws.).
• Maizner v. Hawaii Dep’t of Educ., 405 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1240 (D. Haw. 2005) (“Because [defendant] points to no other legal authority on this issue, he does not meet his burden as the movant of demonstrating that [plaintiff’s] claim under the state constitution fails. The court need not and does not here decide the substantive issue of whether [plaintiff’s] direct claim under the state constitution is cognizable. The court’s ruling is restricted to the conclusion that [defendant’s] motion does not contain a basis for dismissal of that direct claim. If such a basis could indeed be articulated, then that remains to be done. The court will not fashion such an argument for any party and instead exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claim against [defendant].”).

• HI ST § 662-2. The State hereby waives its immunity for liability for the torts of its employees and shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages.

• Hawaii SB 608, An act relating to corrections, 2019 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Haw. 2019), Status: Died in Committee. Summary: Would prohibit the use of administrative or disciplinary segregation unless less restrictive interventions are not available and an inmate commits an act of violence, or poses a serious threat. Would cap administrative segregation at 14 days during any 30-day period and caps disciplinary segregation at 60 days during any 180-day period. Would require that inmates in solitary be provided basic necessities and that regular hearings be held to continue placement. Would require additional mental health evaluations for members of vulnerable populations (those under 21, those older than 65, the mentally ill, developmentally disabled, auditorily or visually impaired, pregnant, or “perceived to be LGBTQ+”) in solitary.

• HAW. REV. STAT. § 353-22.5 (Supp. 1999). All moneys received by windfall or earned by a committed person shall be subject to garnishment [to cover restitution, child support other liabilities, advanced cost of litigation].
• HAW. REV. STAT. § 634J (act regarding vexatious litigants in general)

• HI ST § 662-15. State immune for claim based on: Act or omission of an employee of the State, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation; Exercise or performance of discretionary function or duty on the part of a state officer or employee
• Estate of Ogden v. County of Maui, 2008, 554 F.Supp.2d 1141, affirmed 342 Fed. Appx. 241, 2009 WL 1638612. (Nonjudicial government official has a qualified or conditional privilege with respect to his or her tortious actions taken in the performance of his or her public duty).
• Kaho’ohanohano v. Dept of Human Services, State of Haw., 178 P.3d 538, 117 Haw. 262 (Haw. 2008) (Federal immunity principles are relevant to state’s principles of sovereign immunity, and “State remains immune from liability [under torts statute HI ST § 662-2] based upon governmental functions for which no private analog exists and waives its immunity only to the extent a plaintiff’s claim for relief is comparable to a recognized claim for relief against a private person; thus, whether the State is entitled to sovereign immunity depends on whether a private person would be liable under ‘like circumstances.’”).