Akina v. Hawaii, 835 F.3d 1003

In 2011 Hawaii enacted statutes to facilitate Native Hawaiian self-governance and established a roll of "qualified Native Hawaiians."
Na‘i Aupuni, a Hawai`i nonprofit, received state grant funds to hold a mail-in delegate election (Nov 2015) limited to persons on that roll, to convene an ’Aha to draft a constitution, and to hold a ratification vote limited to the roll.
Plaintiffs sued in Aug 2015 alleging the roll-based, ancestry-restricted process violated the U.S. Constitution and Voting Rights Act; they sought a preliminary injunction to stop the election and related roll use.
The district court denied the preliminary injunction; separate prospective intervenors moved to intervene to defend a narrower definition of "Native Hawaiian" and to challenge trust-fund expenditures; the court denied intervention.
After interlocutory appeals and Supreme Court temporary orders, Na‘i Aupuni cancelled the election, later convened an ’Aha that produced a draft constitution, then declined to fund a ratification vote and dissolved; no ratification vote was held or scheduled.
The Ninth Circuit dismissed the interlocutory appeal of the injunction as moot and affirmed the denial of intervention as of right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether interlocutory appeal of denial of preliminary injunction remains justiciable	Akina argued injunction was needed to stop delegate election and any future racially-limited ratification votes	Defendants argued the election was cancelled, Na‘i Aupuni dissolved, and no effective relief can be granted	Dismissed as moot: no relief court could grant; exceptions to mootness (voluntary cessation; capable of repetition yet evading review) did not apply
Whether prospective intervenors may intervene as of right under FRCP 24(a)	Prospective intervenors sought to defend a narrower definition of "Native Hawaiian" and challenge use of state trust funds	Defendants/others argued intervention would inject different issues and prospective intervenors could litigate separately	Affirmed denial: intervenors lacked a practical impairment of interests in this suit; claims raised different issues and were adequately litigable in separate actions

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (voluntary cessation and mootness principles)
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. _ (2016) (mootness and scope of effective relief in appeals)
Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (intervention standard and interest analysis)
Doe v. Madison Sch. Dist. No. 321, 177 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 1999) (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review test)
Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2003) (mootness in interlocutory appeals)