1. (a) In addition to, and without limiting the other powers of the attorney general and without altering or waiving any criminal penalty, civil, or administrative provisions of this chapter, the attorney general shall have the power to bring an action in the name of the State in any environmental court of competent jurisdiction for restraining orders and injunctive relief to restrain and enjoin violations or threatened violations of this chapter.
2. (b) Any person may maintain an action in the [environmental court] having jurisdiction where the alleged violation occurred or is likely to occur for restraining orders or injunctive relief against the State, its political subdivisions, or any person upon a showing of irreparable injury, for the protection of an historic property or a burial site and the public trust therein from unauthorized or improper demolition, alteration, or transfer of the property or burial site.

[L 1976, c 104, pt of §2; am L 1990, c 306, §10; am L 2003, c 104, §4; am L 2014, c 218, §8]

Case Notes

Where (1) plaintiff had a legitimate interest in the iwi found in Kakaako because plaintiff was a recognized cultural descendant of those iwi, and (2) the rail project had a high likelihood of affecting the iwi, those general factual allegations of injury resulting from defendant's conduct were sufficient to establish that plaintiff had suffered an actual or threatened irreparable injury under subsection (b). 128 H. 53, 283 P.3d 60 (2012).

Because: (1) subsection (b) allows a suit to be brought only for a restraining order or injunctive relief and is an exception to the sovereign immunity doctrine for which no waiver is necessary, and therefore does not contain a waiver of the State's sovereign immunity; and (2) nothing in article XI, §9 of the Hawaii constitution expressly waived the State's immunity for attorney's fees, there was no clear relinquishment of the State's sovereign immunity, and thus, the State's immunity barred petitioner's request for fees based on the private attorney doctrine. 129 H. 454, 304 P.3d 252 (2013).

Where plaintiff asserted that: (1) plaintiff had family members buried on the church grounds; (2) plaintiff was a native Hawaiian and a recognized cultural descendant of the iwi found on the church grounds; (3) plaintiff had a traditional and customary practice of caring for iwi; (4) plaintiff was concerned that family members may be buried in unmarked burials on the church grounds; and (5) the disturbance of unmarked burials of family members or other cultural ancestors would cause plaintiff injury and harm, plaintiff had standing to raise claims under this chapter. 128 H. 455 (App.), 290 P.3d 525 (2012).