This page is dedicated to the protection of sacred Mauna Kea.
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Motion for Reconsideration
Hawai’i Supreme Court Justices Recktenwald and McKenna along with Circuit Judge Castagnetti granted part of the motion for reconsideration deleting footnote 15 and revising footnote 17 however “in all other respects, the motion for reconsideration is denied.” Hawai’i Supreme Court Justices Pollack and Wilson both did their own concurring and dissenting separately while Justice Nakayama was recused.
Motion for Request for Leave to File an Amicus Brief was Denied – Wilson Dissenting
The motion for request for leave to file an amicus brief was denied by Supreme Court Justices Recktenwald, McKenna, and Pollack and Circuit Judge Castagnetti. Justice Nakayama was recused and Justice Wilson dissented. Despite denying this request for leave in its partial reconsideration the Majority of the Hawai’i State Supreme Justices did address two of the suggestions brought up in the request for leave to file an Amicus Brief.
To read Judge Wilson’s dissent on the Order on the Motion for Leave to File and Amicus Brief click HERE
Motion for Reconsideration Filed by Mauna Kea Petitioners
A motion for Reconsideration was filed on November 19, 2018 by attorney Richard Naiwi Wurdeman for the Mauna Kea Petitioners – Mauna Kea Anaina Hou and Kealoha Pisciotta, Clarence Kauakahi Ching, Flores-Case ‘Ohana, Deborah J. Ward, Paul K. Neves, and KAHEA: The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance.
Amicus Brief Filed by Earthjustice, Former Supreme Court Judge, OHA Trustee Machado and others supporting the Motion for Reconsideration by the Mauna Kea Petitioners
An motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of the Motion for Reconsideration by the Mauna Kea Peitioners was filed on November 19, 2018 by D. Kapua’ala Sproat and Isaac Moriwake of Earthjustice, Justice Robert Klein and Kurt Klein of Klein Law Group LLC, Melody MacKenzie, and Colette Machado and Dan Ahuna of Kua’aina Ulu ‘Auamo.
To read the entire motion for leave to file an Amicus Brief in support of the Motion for Reconsideration click HERE.
Justice Wilson of the Hawai’i State Supreme Court Gives His Dissenting Decision
On November 9, 2018, Hawai’i Supreme Court Judge Wilson released his dissenting decision regarding the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope atop Mauna Kea. He argues Conservation land and its cultural and natural resources do not lose its protection under the Hawaiʻi “State” Constitution and the laws of the “State of Hawaiʻi” because it has already had substantial adverse affects caused by previous development. In the case of Mauna Kea the previous building of telescopes on the summits have had adverse affects to the Mauna Kea summits but Judge Wilson states that they should be looking at EXISTING cultural and natural resources. Justice Wilson states:
“The substantial adverse impacts to cultural resources presently existing in the Astronomy Precinct of Mauna Kea combined with the impacts from TMT—a proposed land use that eclipses all other telescopes in magnitude—would constitute an impact on existing cultural resources that is substantial and adverse. Accordingly, the Conservation District Use Application for TMT must be denied.”
Hawai’i Supreme Court Decision Supporting Construction of TMT
On October 30, 2018, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a decision supporting the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope atop Mauna Kea.
In a 73-page ruling, the court affirmed 4-1 the state Board of Land and Natural Resources’ decision to issue a construction permit for the $1.43 billion project. The BLNR’s decision to issue the conservation district use permit had been appealed by TMT opponents.
**Warning when reading the Hawai’i Supreme Court majority decision. The decision was based on faulty and some incorrect information.**