424 P.3d 469
Haw.2018Background
- In May 2014 the University of Hawai‘i requested BLNR’s consent to sublease 8.7 acres of the Mauna Kea Science Reserve to TMT International Observatory (the Sublease); BLNR’s consent is required by the Master Lease.
- E. Kalani Flores (Flores) orally and later in writing requested a contested case hearing before BLNR decided whether to consent; BLNR denied the request and issued written consent in April 2015.
- Flores appealed to the environmental court, which (relying on this court’s Mauna Kea Anaina Hou decision) held BLNR violated his due process rights by denying the contested case and vacated BLNR’s consent.
- BLNR and the University appealed, arguing (1) Chapter 91 doesn’t apply because BLNR acted as a landlord managing public lands, and (2) even if Chapter 91 applies, no contested case was required by statute, rule, or due process.
- The Hawai‘i Supreme Court held Chapter 91 does apply here but that no contested case hearing was required: not by statute or administrative rule, and not by constitutional due process because Flores had already participated in the separate contested case on the CDUP and a duplicate hearing would add no protective value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Flores) | Defendant's Argument (BLNR/University) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HRS Ch. 91 applies to BLNR’s consent to the Sublease | Chapter 91 applies; Flores seeks procedure to protect constitutionally protected interests | Consent to a sublease is internal custodial management of public land and thus outside Ch. 91 under Sharma and Big Island Small Ranchers | Ch. 91 applies; Sharma and Big Island Small Ranchers do not categorically exclude all lease-related landlord actions from Ch. 91 |
| Whether statute (HRS) requires a contested case for BLNR consent to sublease | Statutory framework and Master Lease require procedural protections | HRS §171-36(a)(6) does not mandate a contested case for consent | No — statute does not require a contested case hearing for consent to a sublease |
| Whether administrative rules require a contested case for consent | (Implicit) HAR Title 13 does not mandate a contested case here | No HAR provision requires a contested case for sublease consent; some HAR provisions require contested cases in other contexts | No — applicable DLNR rules do not mandate a contested case for sublease consent |
| Whether due process required a contested case hearing | Flores has a property interest (Article XII, §7) in cultural practices on Mauna Kea; due process therefore required a contested case | Even if Flores has an interest, he already participated in a full contested case on the CDUP; another contested case would be duplicative and not necessary under Sandy Beach balancing | No — although Flores has a constitutionally cognizable interest, due process did not require a separate contested case because he already had a full contested-case opportunity in the CDUP proceeding and additional hearing would be duplicative and burdensome |
Key Cases Cited
- Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Res., [citation="136 Hawai'i 376, 363 P.3d 224"] (Haw. 2015) (held CDUP required contested case hearing under due process where cultural interests at stake)
- Sharma v. State, 66 Haw. 632, 673 P.2d 1030 (Haw. 1983) (agency custodial management of public land may be internal management not always subject to Chapter 91; statutory/due process analysis required)
- Big Island Small Ranchers Ass'n v. State, 60 Haw. 228, 588 P.2d 430 (Haw. 1978) (holding certain lease-auction actions were custodial management and not rulemaking under Chapter 91)
- Sandy Beach Def. Fund v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 70 Haw. 361, 773 P.2d 250 (Haw. 1989) (articulated three-factor balancing test for what process due process requires)
- In re 'Iao Ground Water Mgmt. Area, [citation="128 Hawai'i 228, 287 P.3d 129"] (Haw. 2012) (statute may or may not require hearing; absence of statutory mandate means no required hearing)
- In re Maui Elec. Co., [citation="141 Hawai'i 249, 408 P.3d 1"] (Haw. 2017) (Chapter 91 contested-case principles and when hearing is required)