In an extraordinary and sharply worded critique, a Hawaii Supreme Court justice has publicly accused the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts of systematically weakening constitutional rights, undermining democratic institutions, and pursuing a partisan political agenda. Justice Todd Eddins delivered this blistering assessment within a 91-page majority opinion overturning a decades-old criminal conviction, dedicating roughly eight pages to an unprecedented denunciation of the nation’s highest court. The unusual judicial broadside underscores growing tensions between state and federal judiciaries, particularly in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s increasingly conservative rulings and its embrace of originalist interpretations.
The Granillo Case: A Catalyst for Constitutional Commentary
The foundation for Justice Eddins’ expansive commentary was the case of State v. Granillo, a matter involving a man convicted in 1990 of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman on Maui. The Hawaii Supreme Court, in its Wednesday ruling, ordered a new trial for Granillo, concluding that crucial hair and fiber evidence presented by an FBI expert during the original trial relied on forensic science that has since been widely discredited. This factual basis for overturning the conviction provided Eddins the judicial vehicle to articulate a much broader philosophical and constitutional argument, asserting that Hawaii’s courts should not defer to the Roberts Court’s interpretations when delineating the scope of state constitutional rights.
A Stinging Indictment of the Roberts Court
Justice Eddins’ critique centered on the premise that Hawaii’s Constitution provides more robust protections for its citizens than the federal Constitution, particularly as currently interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority. He explicitly stated, "When six justices walk away from those they are supposed to protect, state constitutions hold the line. That is not defiance. That is the design." This declaration highlighted the concept of "independent state grounds," a legal doctrine allowing state courts to interpret their own constitutions to provide greater protections than those guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, even when the language is similar.
Eddins argued that the Roberts Court has abandoned foundational civil rights principles, alleging a regression to historical periods marked by constitutional interpretations that sanctioned inequality. "The Court that now defines federal due process does not honor the work of 1954," Eddins wrote, referring to Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 decision that outlawed racial segregation in public schools. Instead, he controversially claimed, the current Court "revives the work of 1857. The work of 1896." These dates correspond to Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which denied citizenship to Black Americans and held that Congress could not prohibit slavery in U.S. territories, and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine.
Historical Echoes and the Battle Over Originalism
Justice Eddins’ invocation of Dred Scott and Plessy is a profoundly provocative accusation, likening the methodology of the modern conservative Court to some of the most widely condemned decisions in American legal history. He contended that the Roberts Court’s "hubristic originalists" employ a similar method of constitutional interpretation to control modern life, suggesting that their focus on the original public meaning of the Constitution, often without sufficient consideration for evolving societal norms or consequences, mirrors the restrictive interpretations of the past.
Originalism, a judicial philosophy championed by many conservative legal scholars and justices, posits that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of its framers or the original public meaning of its text at the time of its adoption. Proponents, such as legal scholar John Yoo (as referenced in a related Fox News video summary), argue that this approach helps contain the administrative state and restores principles of federalism and the Bill of Rights. However, critics, like Justice Eddins, argue that a rigid adherence to originalism can lead to outcomes that undermine contemporary civil liberties and equality, particularly when historical contexts are selectively applied or when the framers’ views are deemed insufficient for a diverse, modern society. Eddins explicitly stated, "Today’s hubristic originalists use the same method to control modern life."
Key Roberts Court Decisions Under Scrutiny
Justice Eddins pointed to a series of consequential decisions by the Roberts Court as evidence of its alleged trajectory away from protecting individual rights and towards empowering governmental and wealthy interests. These included:
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022): This monumental ruling overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion and returning the authority to regulate or prohibit abortion to individual states. Eddins views this as a direct rollback of fundamental personal autonomy.
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): This decision held that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights as individuals and that the government cannot restrict independent political spending by these entities in candidate elections. Critics, including Eddins, argue this decision has unleashed a torrent of "dark money" into politics, distorting democratic processes.
- Rucho v. Common Cause (2019): The Court ruled that federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear cases involving partisan gerrymandering, effectively leaving the issue to state courts and legislatures. Eddins sees this as dismantling a "democratic safeguard."
- Trump v. United States (2024): While the final ruling on presidential immunity was not issued at the time of Eddins’ opinion, the Court’s decision to hear the case and its subsequent ruling on the scope of immunity, which delayed former President Trump’s federal election interference trial, was likely seen by Eddins as expanding executive power at the expense of accountability.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022): This decision expanded Second Amendment protections, ruling that states could not require individuals to show "proper cause" to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. This ruling has significantly constrained states’ ability to enact gun control measures.
Eddins’ overarching conclusion from these cases was stark: "The Court overrides what Congress passed. It overrides what the people chose. All to serve its own ends. What this Court has done to constitutional rights, democratic institutions, and the rule of law explains why Hawaiʻi’s Constitution takes no instruction from it."
The "Colorblind" Approach and the Equal Protection Clause
A particularly sharp point of contention for Justice Eddins was the Roberts Court’s approach to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which he characterized as "colorblind." He argued that this approach, notably evident in recent affirmative action cases, ignores the amendment’s original purpose: to protect formerly enslaved Black Americans and ensure racial equality. "The Roberts Court sees only white," he wrote. "It refuses to acknowledge who the Equal Protection Clause was written to protect." This criticism aligns with broader arguments from legal scholars who contend that a "colorblind" interpretation, while seemingly neutral, can perpetuate existing racial inequalities by ignoring historical and systemic discrimination.
The Doctrine of Independent State Grounds
Justice Eddins’ opinion is a powerful assertion of the doctrine of independent state grounds, a principle that gained prominence in the latter half of the 20th century. This doctrine allows state supreme courts to interpret their state constitutions to provide broader individual rights than those guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, even when the federal Supreme Court has interpreted similar provisions more narrowly. This legal avenue has become increasingly significant as the U.S. Supreme Court has shifted ideologically, prompting some state courts to look inward to safeguard rights they believe are being eroded at the federal level. Hawaii’s robust constitutional framework, particularly its explicit privacy protections and commitment to social justice, provides a fertile ground for such independent interpretations. By declaring that Hawaii’s Constitution "takes no instruction" from the Roberts Court, Eddins is signaling a potential path for Hawaii’s judiciary to chart its own course on critical issues, regardless of federal precedent.
Reactions from Legal Experts: A Divide in Opinion
The unprecedented nature of Justice Eddins’ commentary quickly drew strong reactions from legal observers, highlighting the deep ideological rifts within the legal community regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s current trajectory. Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan expressed profound disapproval, stating on X (formerly Twitter), "The Court issues an unhinged attack on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. I haven’t ever seen something like this. And it’s not good." This sentiment reflects concerns about judicial decorum, the hierarchical relationship between state and federal courts, and the potential for such overt criticisms to undermine public confidence in the judiciary as a whole.
Similarly, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley described the opinion as "devoid of judicial restraint and decorum." Turley further elaborated on X, "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 de facto racists." These reactions underscore the highly unusual nature of a state supreme court justice using an official opinion to launch such a direct and emotionally charged critique of the federal high court, particularly accusing justices of racial bias in their interpretations.
Conversely, those who share Justice Eddins’ concerns about the Roberts Court’s direction might view his opinion as a necessary and courageous stand. Progressive legal scholars and advocates have frequently voiced alarm over the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative shift, particularly its decisions on abortion rights, environmental regulations, gun control, and voting rights. For them, Eddins’ opinion might be seen as a legitimate exercise of judicial power to protect state constitutional rights when federal protections are perceived to be diminishing.
Recent Tensions: The Wolford v. Lopez Case
The timing of Justice Eddins’ powerful dissent is also notable, coming just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a significant setback to Hawaii in Wolford v. Lopez. In a 6-3 decision that mirrored the conservative-liberal split of the Court, the justices struck down Hawaii’s "vampire rule," a state law requiring gun owners to obtain permission from a property owner before carrying a firearm into businesses and other private property open to the public. This ruling, which expanded Second Amendment protections and limited states’ ability to regulate firearms, likely intensified concerns within Hawaii’s judiciary about the federal Court’s encroachment on state sovereignty and its impact on local regulations. Eddins’ appointment to the Hawaii Supreme Court in 2020 by then-Democratic Governor David Ige also places him firmly within a judicial philosophy that often prioritizes individual rights and social justice.
The Broader Landscape of Judicial Philosophy and Federalism
Justice Eddins’ opinion is not an isolated incident but rather a prominent manifestation of a broader, ongoing debate about judicial philosophy and the balance of power within the American federal system. The U.S. Supreme Court’s consistent embrace of originalism and textualism under the Roberts Court has led to significant shifts in constitutional law, particularly in areas concerning individual liberties, the powers of the federal government, and the role of the administrative state.
This shift has reignited discussions about "new federalism," a movement that encourages state courts to act as independent guardians of civil liberties, especially when the federal judiciary is perceived to be retreating from that role. State constitutions, often predating the federal Constitution or featuring more expansive language, can serve as distinct sources of rights. Eddins’ opinion is a clear signal that Hawaii’s Supreme Court intends to vigorously pursue this path, potentially leading to divergent legal landscapes between Hawaii and the rest of the nation on issues ranging from due process and equal protection to fundamental rights.
Implications for Federalism and State Rights
The implications of Justice Eddins’ opinion are multifaceted. Firstly, it signals a potential hardening of judicial lines between states and the federal government, particularly for states like Hawaii that have a strong progressive legal tradition. This could lead to more frequent instances where state courts explicitly reject federal constitutional interpretations, asserting their own authority over state constitutional matters.
Secondly, it contributes to the broader public discourse about the legitimacy and perceived politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court. When state supreme court justices issue such sharp rebukes, it can fuel public skepticism about the federal Court’s impartiality and its role in a democratic society.
Finally, for citizens of Hawaii, it suggests that their state’s judiciary may be a more reliable guarantor of certain rights than the federal system, potentially leading to stronger protections for civil liberties, voting rights, and environmental regulations within the state’s borders. As Justice Eddins powerfully concluded, "A court that systematically dismantles democratic safeguards, steamrolls constitutional liberties, and tramples human dignity does not chart the course for the Hawaiʻi Constitution." This statement leaves little doubt that Hawaii’s highest court is prepared to forge its own judicial path, independently defining and defending the constitutional rights of its people.
