A Hawaii Supreme Court justice used a decision throwing out a decades-old criminal conviction to issue a forceful critique of Chief Justice John Roberts’ US Supreme Court, accusing the nation’s highest court of eroding constitutional protections, undermining democratic principles and pushing a political agenda.
Justice Todd Eddins wrote the 91-page majority opinion Wednesday in State v. Granillo, a case centered on a man convicted in 1990 of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman on Maui.
The Hawaii Supreme Court ordered a new trial, finding that hair and fiber evidence offered by an FBI expert at the original trial was based on forensic science that has since been discredited.
Yet about eight pages of the ruling went beyond the specific facts of the case. Eddins argued that Hawaii courts should not rely on the Roberts court when interpreting the state constitution, turning the opinion into an unusually pointed rebuke of the US Supreme Court.
“When six justices walk away from those they are supposed to protect, state constitutions hold the line,” Eddins wrote, referring to the Supreme Court’s six conservative justices. “That is not defiance. That is the design.”
Eddins said Hawaii’s Constitution offers broader safeguards than the federal Constitution as currently interpreted by the US Supreme Court, and he accused the court of moving away from landmark civil rights principles.
“The Court that now defines federal due process does not honor the work of 1954,” Eddins wrote. “It revives the work of 1857. The work of 1896.”
The references were to Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision that ended racial segregation in public schools; Dred Scott v. Sandford, the notorious 1857 ruling that denied citizenship to Black Americans; and Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 decision that upheld racial segregation.
Eddins argued that the Roberts court no longer reflects the constitutional principles established in Brown v. Board of Education. Instead, he argued the court’s originalist approach relies on the same type of constitutional interpretation in the discredited Dred Scott and Plessy decisions.
“Today’s hubristic originalists use the same method to control modern life,” Eddins wrote.
“The Court overrides what Congress passed,” Eddins continued. “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.”
READ MORE: Two Killed, Several Injured in Shooting at Popular Toronto Festival
Throughout the opinion, Eddins pointed to many of the Roberts court’s most consequential decisions as evidence that constitutional protections have been weakened, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion; Citizens United v. FEC on campaign finance; Rucho v. Common Cause on partisan gerrymandering; Trump v. United States on presidential immunity; and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which expanded Second Amendment protections.
Eddins accused the Roberts court of adopting a “colorblind” approach to the equal protection clause that, in his view, ignores the amendment’s original purpose of protecting formerly enslaved Black Americans.
“The Roberts Court sees only white,” he wrote. “It refuses to acknowledge who the Equal Protection Clause was written to protect.”
He also suggested that recent Supreme Court decisions have repeatedly expanded the power of government officials and wealthy interests while reducing protections for individual rights.
“A court that systematically dismantles democratic safeguards, steamrolls constitutional liberties, and tramples human dignity does not chart the course for the Hawaiʻi Constitution,” he wrote.
The opinion quickly drew criticism from legal observers who said it was highly unusual for a state supreme court opinion to devote so much space to criticizing the US Supreme Court.
“The Court issues an unhinged attack on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court,” Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan wrote on X. “I haven’t ever seen something like this. And it’s not good.”
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley similarly described the opinion as “devoid of judicial restraint and decorum.”
“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,” Turley wrote on X.
The opinion comes just weeks after the US Supreme Court handed Hawaii a major loss in Wolford v. Lopez, striking down the state’s so-called “vampire rule.”
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled Hawaii could not require gun owners to get a property owner’s permission before carrying a gun into businesses and other private property open to the public.
Eddins has served on the Hawaii Supreme Court since 2020 after being appointed by former Democratic Gov. David Ige.
