1 Trending: California Is Much Crazier Than You Thought

2 Trending: Strangers Has No Plot Besides Making Women Bitter About Their Marriages

3 Trending: CIA Report: Venezuela ‘Could Have’ Used Voting Machines To Rig Elections

4 Trending: ‘Protecting Life Should Never Have An Expiration Date’: Pro-Life Org Protests Renewed Federal Funding Of Abortion

Hawaii’s Supreme Court Declares War On SCOTUS

Seeds Of A Nullification Crisis Are Planted By Hawaii RulingIn its Granillo v. State opinion, the Hawaii Supreme Court aggressively targets the Supreme Court. Other courts may follow.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

In June, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the U.S. Supreme Court, reversed a decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court, explaining that the Constitution “cannot give way to ‘the spirit of Aloha.’” That was a repudiation of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s earlier ruling that in Hawaii, “[t]he spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons.” The Hawaii Supreme Court relied on the “Aloha Spirit” to end-run around the Second Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected that. And now, the Hawaii Supreme Court has struck back with an opinion in Granillo v. State that attempts to repudiate the current Supreme Court.

The Spirit of Aloha rages against the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. Mad not only about the result in Wolford v. Lopez, 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. pic.twitter.com/FYxTVHCN4e— Eric W. (@EWess92) July 17, 2026

The Spirit of Aloha rages against the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. Mad not only about the result in Wolford v. Lopez, 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. pic.twitter.com/FYxTVHCN4e

There is a version of Granillo v. State that would have made for an unremarkable opinion. On July 15, the Hawaii Supreme Court granted a new trial to a man convicted in 1990 on the strength of FBI hair-and-fiber testimony that modern science has since discredited. Looking at that record and concluding a conviction built on now-discredited testimony cannot stand is normal. Reasonable people can debate the doctrinal test the court adopted, and they often do.

But a doctrinal opinion is not the opinion the Hawaii justices wrote. Around 73 pages into the 91-page opinion, having resolved the case before them, the majority sets the record aside and launches into a deep criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court. When the opinion’s subject changes to the U.S. Supreme Court, the register changes with it — from judicial reasoning to political invective. As a frequent state supreme court practitioner, I have never........

© The Federalist