Dr. Keanu Sai on KITV Island Life Live television show to explain certain events that transpired after the filing of an amici curiae brief in support of the Kamehameha Schools on September 1, 2026, in the federal lawsuit initiated by Students for Fair Admissions.
On September 14, 2026, the attorney for the Amici Curiae was notified that Judge Micah Smith will sign an Order granting Amici’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying Amici Curiae’s Brief in Support of the Kamehameha Schools. However, the filing of the signed Order is pending.
On PACER, which is Public Access to Court Electronic Records, Amici’s attorney was advised “that Document 160 MOTION for Reconsideration requires the judge’s signature. If the filing party has not already done so, please email in Microsoft Word format to the applicable chambers’ email address.” On PACER, Document 160 is identified as “MOTION for Reconsideration; Proposed Order Granting Amici Curiae’s Motion for Reconsideration; Certificate of Service.”
Included in the Amici’s Motion for Reconsideration was a Proposed Order Granting its Motion for Reconsideration.
Amici’s Proposed Order was a generic form of an Order, but it would appear that Judge Smith needed a copy of the Proposed Order in Microsoft Word format so that he is able to write in order to elaborate as to why he made the decision. In Orders, this is usually done under the heading of “Discussion.” A pdf file does not allow any altering of the document.
In Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden, U.S. Magistrate Judge Rom Trader filed a three page Order granting permission for the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Water Protector Legal Collective to file their brief as Amici or friends of the court. Their brief was cited by the Amici in the Kamehameha lawsuit because it explained the legal reasoning as to why the Federal Court must transform into an Article II occupation court to administer Hawaiian Kingdom laws.
Like the Amici in the Kamehameha lawsuit, the Amici in Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden filed a generic Order granting permission to file their brief in support of the plaintiff Hawaiian Kingdom. Magistrate Judge Trader explained his reasoning to grant permission under the heading of “Discussion.”
According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reconsideration of a Court’s Order is allowed where the Judge committed a manifest error of law, which is a clear and undeniable mistake made during a legal proceeding that justifies a reversal of the Court’s decision. This type of error typically occurs when a judge disregards the established facts, applicable laws, or credible evidence in the case. Manifest errors are significant because they can fundamentally affect the outcome of a case.
The amici curiae comprise of sixty-eight scholars and academics, along with the Hawaiian Kingdom Council of Regency, from eleven countries—France, Germany, Hawaiian Kingdom, India, Italy, Japan, Palestine, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Switzerland, and the United States. All amici have an interest in ensuring an informed interpretation by the Court of the consequences that international humanitarian law, the law of occupation, and international criminal law have on its jurisdiction. Four of the amici are scholars of international law.
In their brief, the amici explain why the Court is not legal because it is operating within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, a country that still exists since the nineteenth century despite the unlawful overthrow of its government by U.S. troops on January 17, 1893. However, the amici state that the Court can make itself legal by transforming into an occupation court, under the law of occupation, that would administer Hawaiian Kingdom law in order for the Defendant Kamehameha Schools to have a fair trial. At present, the Court and the Plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions are operating under American law, which the amici point out is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty. Amici conclude their brief by stating if the Court does not begin to comply with international law and the law of occupation it would be committing the war crimes of usurpation of sovereignty and depriving Kamehameha Schools of a fair trial.
According to Blackstone, the English common law rule of jus soli—any person born within British territory is a British subject by birth, is traced back to the feudal law of England based on allegiance to the King. Because allegiance was at the core of natural born citizenship, the common law rule carved out exceptions for those born within British territory whose parents held foreign allegiances such as foreign diplomats or enemy invaders.
On February 25, 1794, King Kamehameha I, showing his allegiance to King George III, ceded the Island Kingdom of Hawai‘i to the British King thereby establishing Hawai‘i as a British Protectorate. Since that date, Kamehameha I, his Chiefs and people were British subjects. According to Captain Vancouver, who was present at the ceremony, he stated the issues “being fully discussed, and thoroughly understood on both sides, the king repeated his former proposition, which was now unanimously approved of, and the whole party declared their consent by saying, that they were no longer Tanata no Owhyhee [Hawai‘i], (i.e.) the people of Owhyhee [Hawai‘i]; but Tanata no Britannee (i.e.) the people of Britain.”
As a result, English common law applied over the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, to include Kamehameha’s acquisition of the Island Kingdom of Maui 1795, and the Island Kingdom of Kaua‘i in 1810. Anyone born within Kamehameha’s kingdom were natural born British subjects.
When the Hawaiian Kingdom became an independent State on November 28, 1843, English common law no longer applied over Hawaiian territory because there was a new allegiance to be owed to King Kamehameha III, a constitutional monarch. Addressing Hawaiian citizenship, the Hawaiian Legislature enacted the Third Act of Kamehameha III in 1847:
All persons born within the jurisdiction of this kingdom, whether of alien foreigners, of naturalized or of native parents, and all persons born abroad of a parent native of this kingdom, and afterwards coming to reside in this kingdom, shall be deemed to owe native allegiance to His Majesty. As such persons shall be amendable to the laws of this kingdom as native subjects.
Natural born citizenship was codified by Hawaiian statute until the legislature enacted the 1859 Civil Code that repealed the Third Act of Kamehameha III. However, natural born citizenship survived by Hawaiian common law in 1856 in Naone v. Thurston, where the Supreme Court stated, “defendant in this case was born of foreign parentage, within the jurisdiction of this realm, and claims to be a Hawaiian subject by birth.” The Civil Code does not mention natural born, but rather Hawaiian citizenship by naturalization and letters patent of denization, which is dual citizenship.
On January 21, 1868, Ferdinand Hutchison, Hawaiian Minister of the Interior, stated the criteria for Hawaiian nationality. He announced it in the Hawaiian Government’s newspaper, The Hawaiian Gazette:
In the judgment of His Majesty’s government no one acquires citizenship in this Kingdom unless he is born here, or born abroad of Hawaiian parents (either native or naturalized) during their temporary absence from the Kingdom, or unless have been the subject of another power, he becomes the subject of this Kingdom by taking the oath of allegiance.
The “judgment of His Majesty’s government” firmly established the means by which a person acquires Hawaiian citizenship through being natural born—jus soli, born abroad of Hawaiian parents—jus sanguinis, naturalization, and denization. The latter two are by virtue of taking the oath of allegiance.
When U.S. troops unlawfully overthrew the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, by an act of war, and began its prolonged occupation on January 17, 1893, sovereignty remained vested in the Hawaiian Kingdom. According to paragraph 353 of the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10:
Being an incident of war [act of war], military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order [by administering the laws of the occupied State], indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force. It is therefore unlawful for a belligerent occupant to annex occupied territory or to create a new State therein (See Geneva Convention, art. 47).
Consequently, allegiance to the Hawaiian Kingdom, under its domestic law, remained unaffected. Therefore, natural born citizenship of the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to apply to children born within Hawaiian territory except for those children born of diplomats and those children born of the population of the invader—United States citizens. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court explained:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual—as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
The last census done in the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1890 listed the entire population at 89,990. Here follows the breakdown by nationality:
According to the United States Census of the population in the Hawaiian Islands from 1900 to 1950, migration from the continental U.S. and its territories in fifty years exploded to 293,379. Here follows the breakdown by year:
On April 30, 1900, the U.S. Congress passed “An Act to Provide a Government for the Territory of Hawaii. Regarding U.S. nationals, section 4 of the 1900 Act stated that:
all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii on August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii. And all citizens of the United States resident in the Hawaiian Islands who were resident there on or since August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight and all the citizens of the United States who shall hereafter reside in the Territory of Hawaii for one year shall be citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.
In addition to this Act, the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution also provided that individuals born in the Hawaiian Islands since 1900 would acquire U.S. citizenship. It states, in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Under these American municipal laws, the putative U.S. national population exploded in the Hawaiian Kingdom from a meager 1,928 out of a total population of 89,990, in 1890, to 423,174 out of a total population of 499,794 in 1950.
The migration of the American population into Hawaiian territory, to include Puerto Ricans and the Filipinos, having both become U.S. territory by the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain, constitutes the war crime of unlawful transfer of populations to the occupied territory. According to Professor Schabas, who authored a legal opinion on war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom since January 17, 1893, “[b]elligerent occupation is a temporary situation and not the prelude to annexation. For this reason, the Occupying Power must not change the demographic, social and political situation in the territory it has occupied to the social and economic detriment of the population living in the occupied territory.”
The unlawful imposition of American laws within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, under an American occupation, constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation, and, therefore, have no legal effect. According to Professor Schabas, the “crime of ‘usurpation of sovereignty’ was referred to by Judge Blair of the American Military Commission in a separate opinion in the ‘Justice Case:’ ‘This rule is incident to military occupation and was clearly intended to protect the inhabitants of any occupied territory against the unnecessary exercise of sovereignty by a military occupant.'”
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., stated, (“[n]either the [federal] Constitution nor the [federal] laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of inter-national law; and it also stated, in The Apollon, “[t]he laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territories except so far as regards its own citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction.”
On July 4, 1894, the provisional government, which President Cleveland stated in his manifesto to the Congress on December 18, 1893, “owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States,” changed its name to the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i. Thereafter, twenty countries violated their obligation of neutrality by recognizing the American puppet and consequently became parties to the war on the side of the United States. These countries spanned Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Customary international law in the nineteenth century required that countries had to have been made aware that a state of war existed between the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom in order to trigger their obligation to be neutral or to become co-belligerents with the United States.
The publication of the President’s manifesto to the Congress on December 18, 1893, in The Alexandria Gazette would have satisfied awareness of the state of war by the Legations in Washington, D.C. He stated to the Congress:
And so it happened that on the 16th day of January, 1893, between four and five o’clock in the afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States steamer Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at Honolulu. The men, upwards of 160 in all, were supplied with double cartridge belts filled with ammunition and with haversacks and canteens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself an act of war.
“If a neutral neglects this obligation,” explains Professor Oppenheim, “he himself thereby commits a violation of neutrality, for which he may be made responsible by a belligerent who has suffered through the violation of neutrality committed by the other belligerent and acquiesced in by him.” The recognition by these countries was an attempt to provide de facto or diplomatic recognition of the American puppet in a state of war that the U.S. initiated. Of these countries, Austria-Hungary, Brazil, Chile, China, France, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Russia, and Spain maintained Legations accredited to the United States in Washington, D.C. in 1893, and, therefore, cannot claim they were unaware of the circumstances of the invasion and overthrow of the Hawaiian government. Under the law of neutrality, countries must refrain from siding with one belligerent to the detriment of the other belligerent. The Hawaiian Kingdom became a belligerent, under international law, as a consequence of the U.S. invasion.
The dates of the recognition are as follows—Austria/Hungary on January 1, 1895, Belgium on October 20, 1894, Brazil on September 29, 1894, Chile on September 26, 1894, China on September 12, 1894, France on August 31, 1894, Germany on October 4, 1894, Guatemala on September 30, 1894, Italy on September 23, 1894, Mexico on August 8, 1894, Netherlands on November 2, 1894, Peru on September 10, 1894, Portugal on December 17, 1894, Russia on August 26, 1894, Spain on November 26, 1894, Sweden/Norway on December 17, 1894, Switzerland on September 11, 1894, and the United Kingdom on September 19, 1894.
The recognition of the so-called Republic did not alter the status of the puppet regime but rather serves as the indisputable evidence that these countries violated their obligation to be neutral during a state of war and instead chose to become co-belligerents with the United States against the Hawaiian Kingdom. Diplomatic recognition of governments does not occur during a state of war between countries but rather only in a situation where revolutionaries within a country succeed in replacing the former government, thus becoming a de facto government by recognition of other countries.
These recognitions were made under the false pretense that the so-called Republic, being an American puppet, succeeded in a revolution and therefore was the new government of Hawai‘i. This narrative was refuted by the President’s manifesto, where he stated that the provisional government “was neither a government de facto nor de jure [because] it was not in such possession of the Government property and agencies as entitled it to recognition.” The insurgents’ control was by virtue of a foreign State’s intervention and not revolution. The co-belligerent States cannot deny this legal reality, notwithstanding their belligerent acts of recognizing the so-called Republic.
Despite the unlawful imposition of American laws, Hawaiian Kingdom laws continued to be in force throughout Hawaiian territory. This included Hawaiian natural born citizenship until the Council of Regency, by proclamation, repealed “the Hawaiian common law of native born or jus soli” on October 2, 2023. Another exception to acquiring Hawaiian natural born citizenship would be foreign populations that entered the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom under United States immigration laws after 1898.
Consequently, the children born in the Hawaiian Kingdom of the populations of the co-belligerent States of Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, did not acquire Hawaiian nationality if they were born after the date of their country’s recognition of the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i.
All other children born of foreign parentage in the Hawaiian Kingdom prior to the United States imposition of its laws in 1898 are Hawaiian subjects. If children born of foreign parents that arrived in the Hawaiian Kingdom after 1898, under U.S. immigration laws, they acquire the citizenship of their parents and are not natural born Hawaiian subjects. If a person is a direct descendant of foreign parentage that arrived in the Hawaiian Kingdom before 1898 and born before the repealing of Hawaiian natural born citizenship on October 2, 2023, they would be natural born Hawaiian subjects.
Today, the attorney for the Amici Curiae filed a Supplemental Brief in Support of its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying Amici Curiae’s Brief in Support of the Kamehameha Schools.
The Supplemental Brief brings in new evidence not seen by the Court regarding the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom case, which was at the center of oral arguments, in Nicaragua v. Germany, at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from September 7-10, 2026.
On March 1, 2024, Nicaragua filed an Application instituting proceedings against Germany for alleged violations by Germany of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, as well as “intransgressible principles of international humanitarian law and other peremptory norms of general international law” in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in particular the Gaza Strip.
In its Application, Nicaragua states that “[e]ach and every Contracting Party to the Genocide Convention has a duty under the Convention to do everything possible to prevent the commission of genocide” and that since October 2023, there has been “a recognised risk of genocide against the Palestinian people, directed first of all against the population of the Gaza Strip.”
Nicaragua further argues that by providing political, financial and military support to Israel and by defunding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, “Germany is facilitating the commission of genocide and, in any case has failed in its obligation to do everything possible to prevent the commission of genocide.”
The Application was accompanied by a request for the indication of provisional measures, in which Nicaragua asks the Court to indicate such measures as a matter of extreme urgency, pending the Court’s determination on the merits of the case, with respect to the “participation [of Germany] in the ongoing plausible genocide and serious breaches of international humanitarian law and other peremptory norms of general international law occurring in the Gaza Strip.”
Germany was seeking to have the ICJ dismiss Nicaragua’s case on jurisdictional grounds. Germany stated that because Israel is not a party to the case the ICJ does not have jurisdiction because Israel is a necessary third party based on the Monetary Gold principle that came before the ICJ in 1954. The Monetary Gold principle is a rule in international law that international courts cannot settle a dispute if doing so requires ruling on the legal interests of an absent third-party State that has not consented to the court’s jurisdiction.
The ICJ scheduled the first round of oral arguments for Germany on September 7, 2026, followed by Nicaragua on September 8. Second round of oral arguments was scheduled for Germany on September 9, followed by Nicaragua on September 10.
During the first round on September 8th, Nicaragua drew the Court’s attention to the arbitration award in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom that was held at the Permanent Court of Arbitration from 1999-2001. Nicaragua was arguing that the Larsen award stated there is an exception to the Monetary Gold principle. According to the transcript Nicaragua stated:
But it is necessary to go further, Ladies and Gentlemen, you who are the judges of the court: In our court case it is no longer a question of the risks of genocide or of risks of grave violations of international humanitarian law or the right of humanity, including the right of the Palestinian people to decide by themselves. It is clear and already established that these risks have become concrete and that the responsibility of Israel is involved by reason of grave and persistent violations of numerous imperative norms of international law. This is in fact established, a “given.” Furthermore when even the principle of Monetary Gold, as Germany interpreted it, would be a stake in the current dispute (quod non [“which it is not”]), it cannot get into the way of you exercising your authority. The Court of Arbitration, which made a pronouncement in the case of Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, presided by James Crawford, recalled very clearly within a different context: The principle of Monetary Gold does not apply as long as “the legal finding against an absent third party could be taken as a “given.”
In the second round on September 9th, Germany responded to Nicaragua’s argument that the Larsen case is an exception to the Monetary Gold principle. According to the transcript, Germany stated:
Ultimately, Nicaragua has not sought to challenge Germany’s point that Nicaragua’s Application and Memorial “are replete with assertions that Israel is in breach of multiple and fundamental norms of international law”, and instead Nicaragua seeks to turn this into a positive, its more strongly argued answer to Monetary Gold, which is the argument that Israel’s breaches can be taken as a “given”. The juridical underpinning of this argument is the decision of the Tribunal ⎯ and certainly a very distinguished Tribunal ⎯ in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. The dispute concerned alleged breach by Hawaii of its Treaty of Amity with the USA through the alleged unlawful imposition of US municipal law in Hawaii. Following its consideration of the Monetary Gold line of cases, with East Timor and Nauru being regarded as “particularly pertinent”, the Tribunal stated:
“11.23. . . . The Tribunal cannot rule on the lawfulness of the conduct of the respondent in the present case if the decision would entail or require, as a necessary foundation for the decision between the parties, an evaluation of the lawfulness of the conduct of the United States of America, or, indeed, the conduct of any other State which is not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. [You can see that is obviously borrowing the formulation from the East Timor case, picked up of course by this Court in Guyana v. Venezuela, and in many other cases.]
11.24. The Tribunal notes, for the sake of completeness, that there may well be exceptions to the Monetary Gold principle. For example, if the legal finding against an absent third party could be taken as given (for example, by reason of an authoritative decision of the Security Council on the point), the principle may well not apply. It is also possible that the principle does not apply where the finding involving an absent third party is merely a finding of fact, not entailing or requiring any legal assessment or qualification of that party’s conduct or legal position. [That is not our case, I note in passing, and Nicaragua has not suggested otherwise. The Tribunal continued:] In the present case, however, the parties did not seek to rely on any possible exception . . . ”
So, of course, the Tribunal did not dig any deeper into this possibility.
On September 10th, Nicaragua responded to Germany’s position regarding the Larsen case. According to the transcript, which is in French, but here is the translation into English, Nicaragua stated:
My contradictor is also coming back at me, in a rather longwinded way, concerning the subject of the argument by Nicaragua according to which, in order once more to take up the formulation of the passage pertinent to the ruling made in the case of Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom—to which he is in deep disagreement. For example, if the legal finding against an absent third party could be taken as given (for example, by reason of an authoritative decision of the Security Council on the point), the principle may well not apply.
Nicaragua pointed out that the Security Council did determine a legal finding that Israel is a belligerent State, a “given,” when it invaded Gaza in its Resolution 2803 (2025), Resolution 2735 (2024), and Resolution 2728 (2024), that determined Israel to be a belligerent State. In its oral argument, Nicaragua also provided a powerpoint slide showing the relevant two articles of the Larsen award.
The significance of these proceedings cannot be underestimated. First, the Larsen case is now being used as a precedent case where there are exceptions to the Monetary Gold principle. Second, it is drawing international attention to the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the illegal imposition of American laws on a world’s stage the International Court of Justice.
It should be noted that when Germany, in its statement, stated to the ICJ that in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom “The dispute concerned alleged breach by Hawaii of its Treaty of Amity with the USA through the alleged unlawful imposition of US municipal law in Hawaii,” it was stating an fact that American laws being imposed in the Hawaiian Kingdom is unlawful. Germany’s statement is from the case description at the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s website states:
Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency (“Hawaiian Kingdom”) on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Both Nicaragua and Germany are Contracting States of the Permanent Court of Arbitration that recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State since the nineteenth century and the Council of Regency as its government. This fact was specifically noted in the Amici Curiae’s Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae’s Brief.
Another particular importance is that William Schabas, Professor of International Law at Middlesex University, and Professor Emeritus of International Criminal Law and Human Rights, at Leiden University, is a member of Nicaragua’s legal team as Counsel.
In 2019, at the request of Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, Professor Schabas wrote a Legal Opinion on War Crimes Related to the United States Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 17 January 1893. One of the war crimes he mentioned was the unlawful imposition of American laws within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation. Professor Schabas is cited in the Amici Brief.
On September 12, 2026, the attorney for Amici Curiae filed a motion for the Court to reconsider its September 4th Order denying Amici Curiae’s brief in support of the Kamehameha Schools. The amici curiae comprise of sixty-eight scholars and academics, along with the Hawaiian Kingdom Council of Regency, from eleven countries. Four of the amici are scholars of international law.
Amicus curiae is Latin for friend of the court. If there is more than one person, the filing is called an amici curiae or friends of the court. In the American court system, an amici curiae are individuals who are not a party to the case but have a particular expertise that can assist the judge in making a consequential decision. Thus, they are called friends of the court. These kinds of briefs are important because they provide expert knowledge, highlight the broader real-world consequences of a potential ruling, and help judges make fully informed decisions.
In their brief, the amici explain why the Court is not legal because it is operating within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, a country that still exists since the nineteenth century despite the unlawful overthrow of its government by U.S. troops on January 17, 1893. However, the amici state that the Court can make itself legal by transforming into an occupation court, under the law of occupation, that would administer Hawaiian Kingdom law in order for the Defendant Kamehameha Schools to have a fair trial.
At present, the Court and the Plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions are operating under American law, which the amici point out is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty. Amici conclude their brief by stating if the Court does not begin to comply with international law and the law of occupation it would be committing the war crimes of usurpation of sovereignty and depriving Kamehameha Schools of a fair trial.
According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for reconsideration is allowed if the Court committed a manifest error by applying a wrong legal standard. The motion argues the court committed a manifest error of law by misapplying Jones v. United States. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Who is the sovereign, de jure or de facto, of a territory is not a judicial, but a political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens, and subjects of that government.”
The amici stated in their motion that the executive branch of the U.S. did “determine” the Hawaiian Kingdom as the sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands when it recognized it as an independent State. Amici then state:
What followed were the 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom at the United States (9 Stat. 977); the 1875 Treaty of Reciprocity (19 Stat. 625); the 1883 Postal Convention Concerning Money Orders (23 Stat. 736); the 1884 Supplementary Convention to the 1875 Treaty of Reciprocity (25 Stat. 1399); and the establishment of the Hawaiian Legation in Washington, D.C., and the United States Legation in Honolulu, to include both establishing Consulates in both countries.
Also, the amici curiae provided, in their brief, clear and undeniable evidence, under international law, that the United States executive branch, by its Embassy at The Hague, recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State since the nineteenth century and the Council of Regency as its interim government during arbitration proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, 119 International Law Reports 566 (2001), under customary international law grounded on opinio juris (Doc. 157, p. 40-41), and by treaty under the 2000 Sai-Clinton agreement (Id., p. 37-39). These are contemporary determinations made by the executive branch of the United States that conclusively binds this Court and the Plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions pursuant to Jones.
The amici argued that the Court misapplied the legal standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Jones as if the executive branch did not recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands. Because the U.S. executive made these determinations of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State since the nineteenth century it is not a political question, and that such determinations are binding on the Court and Students for Fair Admissions because the plaintiff are citizens of the United States. In its Order the Court disregarded the actions taken by the executive branch as if it never occurred. Thus, the Court is wrongly claiming it is still a political question as to who the sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands is.
In its Order, the Court also claims that it is “bound to accept the lawfulness of the government of the United States and the applicability of its laws” in the State of Hawai‘i. The amici assert that U.S. laws, which includes the law establishing the State of Hawai‘i in 1959, have no effect outside of the United States, as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in two cases.
In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., the Supreme Court stated, “Neither the [federal] Constitution nor the [federal] laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.” In The Apollon, it stated, “The laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territories except so far as regards its own citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction.”
The amici state that imposing U.S. laws in the Hawaiian Kingdom is a violation of international humanitarian law and the law of occupation, amounting to the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation.
The motion also critiques the Court’s disregard of the Lorenzo principle, which places the burden on defendants to prove the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In 2014, the State of Hawai‘i Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, stated:
Lorenzo held that, for jurisdictional purposes, should a defendant demonstrate a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i “exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature[,]” and that he or she is a citizen of that sovereign state, a defendant may be able to argue that the courts of the State of Hawai‘i lack jurisdiction over him or her.
Amici, show that this legal standard has applied to all State of Hawai‘i courts for the past thirty-two years and applies to the U.S. District Courts in Hawai‘i for the past twenty-four years. Amici provided sufficient factual and legal evidence of the Kingdom’s continued existence, and that the Court erred by disregarding the binding nature of the Lorenzo principle. The amici stated:
Neither did the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals in Lorenzo, the State of Hawai‘i Supreme Court in Armitage, nor did Judge Ezra in United States v. Goo, invoke Jones. For the Court now to invoke Jones is a blatant manifest error of law that runs counter to the Lorenzo principle that has bound U.S. District Courts in Hawai‘i for the past 24 years.
Under international law, there is a legal principle of the presumption of State continuity, even under occupation. In its motion that amici state:
“[t]here is a presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations […] despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government,” and that “belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.” Judge Crawford further points out that “the presumption—in practice a strong one—is in favour of the continuance, and against the extinction, of an established state.” See James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law 417 (1979). Consequently, “[i]f one were to speak about a presumption of continuity, one would suppose that an obligation would lie upon the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts substantiating its rebuttal. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in other words, may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States.”
Consequently, Lorenzo and Armitage erred when it placed the burden on the defendant because under international law that burden is placed on the Plaintiff or the Judge who oppose that continuity to provide rebuttable evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom has ceased to exist as a State under international law. Failure to provide rebuttable evidence the presumption of Hawaiian State continuity remains. By disregarding the facts and international law, the Court committed manifest error of law by not properly applying the Lorenzo principle and providing no rebuttable evidence as to the presumption of Hawaiian State continuity and the evidence provided by the amici curiae in its brief.
These arguments, by the amici, collectively challenge the court’s jurisdiction and the application of U.S. law in Hawai‘i, grounding their claims in both U.S. and international law, and emphasizing the ongoing legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The amici conclude its motion with:
Under international humanitarian law and the law of occupation, the Court is obligated to transform itself into an Article II occupation court so that it can administer Hawaiian Kingdom law that protect the rights of the Defendant Kamehameha Schools, unless the Court can provide rebuttable evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom is not the de jure sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands, which it has not done. Until there is rebuttable evidence, this Court IS situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom and NOT within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
The burden is on the Court, pursuant to Curtiss-Wright Corp., to provide evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist as a State, under international law, by reference to “treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.” And Curtiss-Wright Corp. precludes the Court from referencing “the [federal] Constitution [or] the [federal] laws passed in pursuance of it,” because it has no “force in foreign territory.” In its Order denying amici curiae’s motion for leave to file amici curiae brief, the Court could have, sua sponte, provided rebuttable evidence as to the presumption of Hawaiian State continuity and evidence provided in the amici curiae’s brief, but it did not.
Therefore, the Court’s willful act not to transform into an Article II occupation court would be a violation of international humanitarian law and the law of occupation, and, consequently, would constitute the commission of the war crimes of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation and deprivation of fair and regular trial, thereby making the Defendant Kamehameha Schools a war crime victim. Under international law, the Council of Regency, as the interim government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, has a duty and obligation to investigate war crimes committed within Hawaiian territory. See David Keanu Sai, “All States have a Responsibility to Protect their Population from War Crimes—Usurpation of Sovereignty During Military Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands,” 6(2) International Review of Contemporary Law 72-81 (2024).
Many of those individuals who claim to be an heir to the Hawaiian throne base their claims on the English common law regarding heirship to the throne. Under English common law, the Crown is inherited by the monarch’s children or if no children by a collateral line. The inheritance is by the eldest male child called an heir apparent, or if there be no male child then the eldest female child called an heir presumptive.
While an heir apparent cannot be replaced, an heir presumptive can be if the monarch has a male child before their death. An example of an heir presumptive was Queen Elizabeth II. She was the only daughter of King George VI. George VI had no male children. Elizabeth became Queen on February 6, 1952. And an example of an heir apparent is the Queen’s eldest son, Charles III, who became King Charles after his mother’s passing on September 8, 2022.
Heirship to the throne is not only regulated by the English common law, but also by the British Parliament. According to the British Royal Household website, the “succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by Parliamentary statute.” The two Parliamentary statutes referred to are the 1689 Bill of Rights and the 1701 Act of Settlement. The 2013 Succession to the Crown Act amended the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement by repealing male primogeniture where a younger son can displace an elder daughter who under the previous laws was known as an heir presumptive. After 2013, an heir apparent can be either male or female but they must be the eldest.
The Hawaiian Kingdom has its own customs and laws regarding heirship to the Hawaiian throne. English common law does not apply to the Hawaiian Kingdom. Under Hawaiian custom at the turn of the nineteenth century, it was the King who would designate his successor with the consent of his Council of High Chiefs. This is how Liholiho, King Kamehameha’s son, was proclaimed by Kamehameha as his successor before his death in 1819. Liholiho was thereafter called Kamehameha II. On July 14, 1824, Kamehameha II died in London. When his body was brought back in 1825, the Council of Chiefs, with Ka‘ahumanu as Regent, proclaimed that Kamehameha II’s younger brother, Kauikeaouli, would be his successor as Kamehameha III.
After Kamehameha III proclaimed the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in 1840, the Hawaiian government would become involved in regulating who would be the heirs and an heir apparent to the Hawaiian throne. Under Hawaiian law, there was no heir presumptive. The 1840 Constitution stated, the “kingdom is permanently confirmed to Kamehameha III, and his heirs, and his heir shall be the person whom he and the chiefs shall appoint, during his life time, but should there be no appointment, then the decision shall rest with the chiefs and the house of Representatives.”
This provision was amended by article 25 of the 1852 Constitution, which stated, the “crown is hereby permanently confirmed to His Majesty Kamehameha III during his life, and to his successors. The successor shall be the person whom the King and the House of Nobles shall appoint and publicly proclaim as such, during the King’s life; but should there be no such appointment and proclamation, then the successor shall be chosen by the House of Nobles and the House of Representatives in joint ballot.”
The 1852 Constitution also provided qualifications for the House of Nobles to confirm or deny the King’s appointment. Article 26 states, “No person shall ever sit upon the throne who has been convicted of any infamous crime, or who is insane or an idiot. No person shall ever succeed to the crown, unless he be a descendant of the aboriginal stock of Aliis.” Convicted of an infamous crime is a person convicted of a felony. According to Michael Clemente, in his article A Reassessment of Common Law Protections for “Idiots,” “important characteristics of idiocy included: heightened dependence on others, ineducability, a lack of normalcy or maturity, and sometimes idiocy’s congenital origins and accompanying physical abnormalities.” He also states that unlike insanity which “was marked by intermittent ‘madness,’” idiocy was a permanent mental state. An example of a Monarch that went insane was King George III.
Kamehameha III appointed and received confirmation by the House of Nobles that his adopted son Alexander Liholiho would be his successor on April 7, 1853. He was called Kamehameha IV after Kamehameha III died on December 15, 1854.
Kamehameha IV only had one son, Prince Albert Edward Kauikeaouli Kaleiopapa a Kamehameha, but he tragically died at the age of 4 on August 27, 1862. On November 30, 1863, Kamehameha IV died without appointing a successor according to Article 25. This situation triggered Article 47, which states, “Whenever the throne shall become vacant by reason of the King’s death, or otherwise, and during the minority of any heir to the throne, the Kuhina Nui, for the time being, shall, during the vacancy or minority, perform all the duties incumbent on the King, and shall have and exercise all the powers, which by this Constitution are vested in the King.”
Victoria Kamāmalu, a sister of Kamehameha IV, was the Kuhina Nui or Prime Minister at the time of the death of her brother. Victoria Kamāmalu provided continuity for the office of the Crown pending the appointment by her and the Nobles confirming the successor to be her other brother Lot Kapuaiwa as Kamehameha V on November 30, 1863.
When the 1864 Constitution came into effect on August 20th, the position of Kuhina Nui was repealed and replaced by the Cabinet Council should a monarch die without a proclaimed successor. Article 33 states, “should a Sovereign decease…the Cabinet Council at the time of such decease shall be a Council of Regency.”
Article 22 provides, “The Crown is hereby permanently confirmed to His Majesty Kamehameha V, and to the Heirs of His body lawfully begotten, and to their lawful Descendants in a direct line; failing whom, the Crown shall descend to Her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria Kamamalu Kaahumanu, and the heirs of her body, lawfully begotten, and their lawful descendants in a direct line. The Succession shall be to the senior male child, and to the heirs of his body; failing a male child, the succession shall be to the senior female child, and to the heirs of her body. In case there is no heir as above provided, then the successor shall be the person whom the Sovereign shall appoint with the consent of the Nobles, and publicly proclaim as such during the King’s life; but should there be no such appointment and proclamation, and the Throne should become vacant, then the Cabinet Council [as a Council of Regency], immediately after the occurring of such vacancy, shall cause a meeting of the Legislative Assembly, who shall elect by ballot some native Alii of the Kingdom as Successor to the Throne; and the Successor so elected shall become a new Stirps for a Royal Family; and the succession from the Sovereign thus elected, shall be regulated by the same law as the present Royal Family of Hawaii.”
The 1864 Constitution provided an additional regulation regarding heirs to the throne. Article 23 provides, it “shall not be lawful for any member of the Royal Family of Hawaii who may by Law succeed to the Throne, to contract Marriage without the consent of the Reigning Sovereign. Every Marriage so contracted shall be void, and the person so contracting a Marriage, may, by the Proclamation of the Reigning Sovereign, be declared to have forfeited His or Her right to the Throne, and after such Proclamation, the Right of Succession shall vest in the next Heir as though such offender were Dead.”
Kamehameha V had no children, which required him to “appoint with the consent of the Nobles” as his successor to the throne. On December 11, 1872, Kamehameha V died without a proclaimed successor according to Article 22. His death triggered Article 22 and 33, where his Cabinet Council, comprised of the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Attorney General, would become a Council of Regency and whose duty was to immediately convene the Legislative Assembly to elect by ballot a new Royal Stirps.
On January 8, 1873, William Charles Lunalilo, was the first elected King in the kingdom. He was thereafter called King Lunalilo. He was not of the Kamehameha Dynasty thereby creating a new stirp. Just over a year, on February 3, 1874, King Lunalilo died without appointing a successor to the throne. His Cabinet Council became a Council of Regency, and they convened the Legislative Assembly in a special session and David Kalākaua was elected to be King on February 12, 1874. He came to be known as King Kalākaua. Two days later, on February 14th, he appointed his younger brother, William Pitt Leleiōhoku, to be his successor in accordance with Article 22, which was confirmed by the Nobles. Three years later, on April 10, 1877, Leleiōhoku passed away. The next day, King Kalākaua appointed his sister Princess Lili‘uokalani as the heir apparent to the throne in accordance with Article 22, which the Nobles consented.
King Kalākaua was not of the Lunalilo or Kamehameha Dynasty. His dynasty was comprised of the King, his brother Prince William Pitt Leleiohoku, his sister Princess Lili‘uokalani, his sister Princess Miriam Likelike, and his niece Princess Victoria Kaʻiulani, daughter of Princess Likelike. In 1883, King Kalākaua extended his dynasty by proclaiming the inclusion of Princess Virginia Kapoʻoloku Poʻomaikelani, Princess Victoria Kinoiki Kekaulike, and her sons Prince David Kawananakoa, Prince Edward Abnel Keli‘iahonui, and Prince Jonah Kūhiō Kalaniana‘ole. Princess Po‘omaikelani and Princess Kekaulike were the younger sisters of Queen Kapi‘olani, the wife of King Kalākaua. Prince Edward died September 25, 1887, at the age of eighteen.
King Kalākaua’s last will and testament, dated May 21, 1888, was filed for probate in the Hawaiian Supreme Court on March 5, 1891, and proved on the following day. The first six articles addressed the succession of the throne.
KALAKAUA, by the grace of God and the will of the Legislative Assembly of the Hawaiian Islands, King, being of sound and disposing mind and memory and well knowing the uncertainties of human life, do hereby make, publish and declare this to be Our last Will and Testament, in manner following that is to say:
First—In conformity with Our appointment and public proclamation made on the 12th day of April A. D. 1877, and in accordance with the 22d Article of the Constitution promulgated by Us on the 7th day of July A. D. 1877, that Our beloved Sister, Her Royal Highness Princess Liliuokalani, be Our successor to the Throne of Hawaii, it is Our will that she ascend the Throne immediately upon Our decease in case We die without heirs of Our body lawfully begotten.
Second—It is Our wish that Our beloved Sister and successor the Princess Liliuokalani, failing heirs of her body upon succeeding to the Throne of Hawaii, appoint and publicly proclaim as her successor Our beloved Niece, Her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria Kawekiu Kaiulani Keahilapalapa Kekauluohi.
Third—It is further Our wish that the Throne of Hawaii shall descend to Our beloved Niece, Her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria Kawekiu Kaiulani, the daughter and heir of Her Royal Highness Princess Likelike, and to the heirs of her body in succession, it being Our wish and desire that the sovereignship of the Kingdom of Hawaii be perpetuated in the family of which We are the head.
Fourth—In the event that the Throne of Hawaii shall descend to Our beloved Niece, Her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria Kawekiu Kaiulani, as in the last article provided, while she has not attained the age of majority, We ordain that Her Majesty Our Beloved Queen Consort Kapiolani, if then surviving, shall be Regent to conduct the Government until the Princess shall have attained the age of majority.
Fifth—In case, however, the royal line as hereinbefore indicated in articles one, two and three shall be about to become extinct, and Her Majesty Our beloved Queen Kapiolani shall then survive, it is Our wish that the Sovereign last reigning of Our immediate family, as before indicated, shall appoint and proclaim Her Majesty Queen Kapiolani to be the next successor to the Throne of Hawaii.
Sixth—It is our wish to provide that when the last one of Our immediate family shall come to the Throne, there being no issue of his or her body to succeed in order, and Her Majesty Queen Kapiolani not being alive when such event shall occur, the Throne of Hawaii shall descend to Our beloved Sister, Her Royal Highness Princess Poomaikelani, and after her, failing heirs of her body, the Throne of Hawaii shall descend to the sons of Our cousin as follows: First to His Royal Highness Prince David Kawananakoa and to the heirs of his body, and failing heirs then to His Royal Highness Prince Cupid Kalanianaole and the heirs of his body; each to assume the name and title of Kalakaua, and to be numbered in order from Us as the first of this name, and in that case to assume the number that shall next follow in numerical order.
On January 29, 1891, Princess Lili‘uokalani, heir apparent, succeeded to the throne upon the death of King Kalākaua who died on January 20, 1891, in San Francisco, California. Between January 20th and the 29th, Princess Lili‘uokalani, along with Kalākaua’s Cabinet, were serving as a Regency serving in the absence of the King who was in the United States.
Although the Hawaiian Kingdom was invaded by U.S. Marines on January 16, 1893, and illegally overthrew the monarchy, the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State continued to exist as a subject of international law, which included its legal order as a constitutional monarchy, despite the American occupation that is now at 133 years. Therefore, under Hawaiian Kingdom law, the Kalākaua Dynasty continued to exist until the death of Queen Lili‘uokalani on November 11, 1917.
The following heirs to the throne died before the death of Queen Lili‘uokalani: Princess Ka‘iulani, first in line, died March 6, 1899; Queen Kapi‘olani, second in line, died June 24, 1899; Princess Po‘omaikelani, third in line, died October 2, 1895.
Both Prince David Kawānanakoa and Prince Kūhiō Kalaniana‘ole were married after the U.S. invasion and unlawful overthrow of the government in 1893. Prince Kūhiō married Elizabeth Kahanu Kaʻauwai on October 8, 1896, and Prince David married Abigail Cambell on January 6, 1902.
According to article 23 of the 1864 Constitution, as amended, these marriages are unlawful unless they received the “consent of the Reigning Sovereign” who was still Queen Lili‘uokalani, without which “Every Marriage so contracted shall be void.” Under Hawaiian law, this consent would be evidenced by a public proclamation of the Queen. There is no evidence of any proclamation making these marriages lawful in accordance with article 23. This provision only applied to the heirs of the throne within the Kalākaua Dynasty. Although the marriages were void by virtue of this article, it did not remove Prince David and Prince Kūhiō as heirs to the throne. Article 23 requires a “Proclamation of the Reigning Sovereign,” to declare their “right to the Throne” has been forfeited, and that “the Right of Succession shall vest in the next Heir as though such offender were Dead.” There is no evidence of a proclamation by the Queen on this matter before her death in 1917. Prince David died on June 2, 1908, and Prince Kūhiō died on January 7, 1922. Therefore, the Kalākaua Dynasty came to an end at the death of Prince Kūhiō.
Prince Kūhiō had no children, but Prince David had three children, Abigail Kapiʻolani, David Kalākaua, and Lydia Liliʻokalani. Article 23 precludes these children from being heirs to the throne under the Kalākaua Dynasty because the marriage of Prince David was void. Under Hawaiian Kingdom law, there were three separate Royal Dynasties that came to an end. The Kamehameha Dynasty came to an end at the death of King Kamehameha V on December 11, 1872. The Lunalilo Dynasty came to an end at the death of King Lunalilo on February 3, 1874. And the Kalākaua Dynasty came to an at the death of Prince Kūhiō on January 7, 1922.
In 1996, remedial steps were taken to reinstate the Hawaiian Kingdom government, as it stood under its legal order, prior to the U.S. invasion and unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian government, on January 17, 1893 (see pages 18-23 in the Royal Commission of Inquiry). In accordance with the 1864 Constitution, as amended, and the doctrine of necessity, an acting Council of Regency, comprised of Cabinet Ministers, was established to serve in the absence of the Executive Monarch. Following this process, an acting Government, comprised of officers de facto, was established as the successor to Queen Lili‘uokalani, Hawai‘i’s last Executive Monarch, which left the office vacant from the date of her death.
There was no legal requirement for the Council of Regency, as the successor in office to Queen Lili‘uokalani under Hawaiian constitutional law, to obtain recognition from the United States as the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The United States’ recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent State, on July 6, 1844, was also the recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom government—a Constitutional Monarchy. Successors in office to King Kamehameha III, who at the time of international recognition was King of the Hawaiian Kingdom, did not require diplomatic recognition. These successors included King Kamehameha IV in 1854, King Kamehameha V in 1863, King Lunalilo in 1873, King Kalākaua in 1874, Queen Lili‘uokalani in 1891, and the Council of Regency in 1997.
According to M.J. Peterson, in his book Recognition of Governments: Legal Doctrines and State Practice, 1815-1995, the legal doctrines of recognition of new governments only arise “with extra-legal changes in government” of an existing State. Successors to King Kamehameha III were not established through “extra-legal changes,” but rather through the constitution and laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. According to United States foreign relations law, Restatement (Third), §203, comment c, “Where a new administration succeeds to power in accordance with a state’s constitutional processes, no issue of recognition or acceptance arises; continued recognition is assumed.”
The Hawaiian Council of Regency was established in a similar fashion to the Belgian Council of Regency, which was formed, after King Leopold was captured by the Germans, during the Second World War. Just as the Belgian Council of Regency was established under Article 82 of its 1831 Constitution, as amended, in exile, so to was the Hawaiian Council of Regency formed under Article 33 of its 1864 Constitution, as amended, not in exile but in situ. As F.E. Oppenheimer explains the Belgian situation in his article Governments and Authorities in Exile:
As far as Belgium is concerned, the capture of the king did not create any serious constitutional problems. According to Article 82 of the Constitution of February 7, 18[31], as amended, the cabinet of ministers have to assume supreme executive power if the King is unable to govern. True, the ministers are bound to convene the House of Representatives and the Senate and to leave it to their decision of the united legislative chambers to provide for a regency; but in view of the belligerent occupation it is impossible for the two houses to function. While this emergency obtains, the powers of the King are vested in the Belgian Prime Minister and the other members of the cabinet.
Professor Lenzerini, who wrote a legal opinion on the authority of the Council of Regency, stated:
In light of the foregoing—particularly in consideration of the fact that, under international law, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as an independent State, although subjected to a foreign occupation, and that the Council of Regency has been established consistently with the constitutional principles of the Hawaiian Kingdom and, consequently, possesses the legitimacy of temporarily exercising the functions of the Monarch of the Kingdom-it is possible to conclude that the Regency actually has the authority to represent the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, which has been under a belligerent occupation by the United States of America since 17 January 1893, both at the domestic and international level.
In 1999, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State, under international law, and the Council of Regency as its provisional government. And in 2024, Oxford University Press (OUP) London acknowledged the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as an occupied State and the Council of Regency as its provisional government when published Dr. Keanu Sai’s chapter Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire.
In all its publication OUP states, “Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.” To maintain “excellence in research, scholarship, and education,” OUP operates by a double-blind review, where the author of the manuscript and the peer reviewers are both anonymous. The peer review process is where scholarly work is rigorously scrutinized by experts selected as reviewers, also referred to as referees, by OUP. Once it passes the peer review process OUP publishes the manuscript. If Hawai‘i was the 50th State of the American Union, and not the occupied State of the Hawaiian Kingdom, this manuscript would not have gotten passed the peer review process.
This published chapter begins with the death of Captain Cook in 1779, evolution from absolute rule to a constitutional monarchy, government reform, invasion by U.S. Marines that led to the unlawful overthrow of the government in 1893, the American occupation that followed, the restoration of the government by a Regency that serves in the absence of a monarch in 1997, and ends with the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom dispute where the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in 1999, recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State and the Council of Regency as its provisional government.
Yesterday, June 11th, was a Hawaiian Kingdom national holiday honoring King Kamehameha I the father of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Daughters and Sons of Hawaiian Warriors – Māmakakaua have stood watch at the ceremony honoring Kamehameha I at his statue fronting Aliʻiolani Hale, the government building, since June 11, 1914. The statue was unveiled by King Kalākaua on February 14, 1883. Attending the ceremony were other Hawaiian Royal Orders and Societies.
Dr. Keanu Sai was invited by the leadership of The Daughters and Sons of Hawaiian Warriors – Māmakakaua to give a tribute speech to Kamehameha. Here follows the speech Dr. Sai gave that day.
We gather today to commemorate Kamehameha I, Pai‘ea, the father of our country, the Hawaiian Kingdom. Kamehameha was not merely a great ali‘i; he was the chief whose leadership brought the Hawaiian Islands under one kingdom and established the foundation of our country. By 1810, through conquest and agreement, the islands were consolidated under his rule, and the country came to be known in the nineteenth century as the Hawaiian Kingdom.
It is important, on this day, that we remember Kamehameha not only as a warrior and aliʻi, but as the head of a developing nation. On February 24, 1794, while King of Hawaiʻi Island, Kamehameha entered into an agreement with Captain George Vancouver that placed Hawaiʻi under British protection. This relationship helps explain why the Union Jack appears on our national flag. The flag we see today is not the flag of the State of Hawaiʻi. It is the national flag of the Hawaiian Kingdom formally established by the Hawaiian Legislature in 1845.
During the reign of Kamehameha III, Kauikeaouli, the Hawaiian Kingdom became a constitutional monarchy in 1840. Three years later, on November 28, 1843, it was transformed from a British protectorate into an independent State — an event now commemorated as Lā Kūʻokoʻa, Hawaiian Independence Day. This is another important national holiday, alongside Kamehameha Day, which was declared in 1872 by Kamehameha’s grandson, King Kamehameha V, Lot Kapuāiwa.
My name is Dr. David Keanu Sai, and I serve as Acting Minister of the Interior and Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim for the Council of Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Council of Regency also includes His Excellency Dexter Kaʻiama, Acting Attorney General, and Her Excellency Kauʻi Sai-Dudoit, Acting Minister of Finance.
From 1999 to 2001, the Council of Regency represented the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State under an American occupation before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands. In the Larsen case, I served as lead agent of the legal team, with His Excellency Minister Umialiloa Sai serving as deputy agent, His Excellency Gary Dubin, acting Attorney General, serving as second deputy agent, and Her Excellency Minister Kau‘i Sai-Dudoit serving as third deputy agent.
On December 12, 2000, the national flag of the Hawaiian Kingdom was unfurled at The Hague alongside the national flags of Germany, France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands. That moment was significant because it placed the Hawaiian Kingdom within an international setting, alongside other countries, and affirmed the Council’s position that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist under international law.
British novelist Donald James once wrote, “when a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”
Since returning from oral hearings at the Permanent Court in December 2000, the Council of Regency has undertaken the work of restoring Hawaiian Kingdom national consciousness in the minds of the people through academic research, education, and publishing. This work is necessary because generations that have been subjected to Americanization obscured their understanding of the legal and political history of our country and narrowed our understanding of who we are.
Her Excellency Kauʻi Sai-Dudoit has been the director of the Hawaiian language newspaper project, Hoʻolaupaʻi and currently He Aupuni Palapala, and has worked to bring 114 years of Hawaiian knowledge back into contemporary spaces. As the Programs Director of Awaiaulu, she has built an online history resource for educators called Kīpapa Educator Resources.
After receiving my Ph.D. in political science from the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa in 2008, I authored in 2011 Ua Mau Ke Ea—Sovereignty Endures: The Legal and Political History of the Hawaiian Islands, which is a history book currently utilized in Hawaiʻi schools and early college courses. My most recent publication Hawaiʻi’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire was published in 2024 by the renowned Oxford University Press in London. That work, together with the broader educational efforts of the Council and its members, is part of restoring knowledge of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a continuing State under international law.
Today, as we honor Kamehameha Pai‘ea, we are not looking backward. We are remembering the foundation of a country, the continuity of its national identity, and the duty we carry to restore Hawaiian national consciousness. Kamehameha’s legacy is not confined to the past. It continues in the work of remembering, teaching, and acting from the knowledge that the Hawaiian Kingdom endures. Hawai‘i is not the 50th State of the United States. It is the occupied State of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Let us recall, as we move forward, the words of our great leader, Kamehameha Paiʻea: “I mua e nā pōkiʻi, a inu i ka wai ʻawaʻawa. ʻAʻohe hope i hoʻi mai ai.” Go forward, young warriors, and drink the bitter waters, for there is no turning back.
On January 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge Micah Smith issue an order denying the Council of Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion to Intervene in the federal lawsuit Students for Fair Admissions v. Kamehameha Schools. The Council of Regency is intervening as the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The lawsuit, brought by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), seeks to dismantle the Native Hawaiian admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools—an institution created by Aliʻi Bernice Pauahi Bishop to uplift and educate Hawaiian children. SFFA claims that Kamehameha Schools’ policy violates U.S. civil rights law and is premised on the assertion that Hawaiʻi was lawfully annexed and fully absorbed into the United States more than a century ago.
The Council of Regency’s intervention is necessary because this case is built on fundamental historical and legal inaccuracies that neither party before the Court can correct. At stake is not only the future of Kamehameha Schools, but the integrity of Hawaiian Kingdom law, the rights of the Hawaiian people, and the protection of future generations who were the express beneficiaries of Pauahi’s trust.
U.S. civil rights law, which includes all U.S. laws and administrative measures, cannot be imposed within the territory of the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom, which constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. The United States has recognized usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation as a war crime since the First World War.
As an occupied State, only Hawaiian Kingdom law applies in this case, which allows preferential admissions to Hawaiian children. The Council of Regency is intervening to protect Kamehameha Schools, which was called the Bishop Estate in the nineteenth century.
Kamehameha Schools was created under the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the nineteenth century, at a time when Hawaiʻi was an internationally recognized sovereign State with treaties, diplomats, and a functioning constitutional government. Pauahi’s will was accepted by the Hawaiian Kingdom probate court in 1885—years before the illegal overthrow of the government of Queen Liliʻuokalani on January 17, 1893. Those laws did not disappear with the arrival of U.S. troops.
Under international law, the overthrow of a government does not extinguish the State itself. In 1997, the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was restored as a Regency under Hawaiian constitutional law and the legal doctrine of necessity.
On February 3, 2026, the Council of Regency, as interim government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, filed its Motion for Reconsideration with the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i, seeking reconsideration of Judge Smith’s order denying the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion to Intervene in the federal lawsuit filed on January 21, 2026.
The Hawaiian Kingdom argues that Judge Smith committed “manifest errors of law” including its misapplication of the political question doctrine at the intervention stage. The political question doctrine bars federal courts from adjudicating disputes that are “textually committed” by the U.S. Constitution to another branch or lack judicially manageable standards to resolve. In the case of Hawai‘i, the court invoked this doctrine because it falsely asserted that the United States executive branch has not recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom. In this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom provides conclusive evidence that Judge Smith’s order is a “manifest error.”
In its motion for reconsideration, the Council of Regency provided two explicit evidence that the United States recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State and the Council of Regency as its interim government during international arbitration proceedings at the Permanent Court. The first piece of evidence is when the United States entered into an executive agreement with the Council of Regency, called the 2000 Sai-Clinton agreement, for it to have access to all records and pleadings of the international arbitration case of Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration from 1999-2001.
The second piece of evidence is under opinio juris—customary international law, when it did not object to the Permanent Court’s recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency before it formed the arbitration tribunal on June 9, 2000. By not objecting, the United States accepted the Permanent Court’s recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency. Here is a link to a memorandum that explains the circumstances of this evidence under international law published by the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Foreign Ministry.
On the matter of opinio juris—customary international law, none of the current 127 Contracting States to the treaty that formed the Permanent Court, to include the United States, objected to the Permanent Court’s conclusion that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that it is a non-Contracting State under Article 47 of the treaty permitting the Hawaiian Kingdom access to the Permanent Court. Article 47 states, the “jurisdiction of the Permanent Court may…be extended to disputes [with] non-Contracting Powers.” In international law, “Powers” is used interchangeably with “States.”
Under opinio juris, the practice of the Permanent Court includes its case description on its website that was not objected to by the United States. It states:
Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency (“Hawaiian Kingdom”) on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The case description by the Permanent Court states that the Council of Regency is the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America continues to exist, and the imposition of American laws within Hawaiian territory is “unlawful.”
On February 16, 2026, the Hawaiian Kingdom filed its motion for leave to file supplemental brief in support of motion for reconsideration that provided additional evidence of the Council of Regency being the interim government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Added to the Permanent Court, is the recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the International Seabed Authority (ISA). In a formal letter, dated March 3, 2026, from the ISA’s Secretary General, Letitia Carvalho, to Hawaiian Kingdom Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim, Dr. David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., the ISA recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State since the nineteenth century and its status as an Observer State. In her letter, the Secretary General clarifies the rules and practice of the ISA for a State to acquire observer status under Rule 82 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of the ISA.
The ISA is an international organization that is composed of representatives of States that are Contracting States to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The headquarters of the ISA is in Kingston, Jamaica, where the Council and the Assembly of the ISA meet in session. Currently, the membership of the ISA is comprised of the European Union and 171 Contracting States to the UNCLOS.
According to Civil Beat, “Leticia Carvalho, the secretary-general of the ISA, said last week that she wants to finalize global rules governing seabed mining by the end of this year, a reversal of her previous position that the regulations could take several years to finalize, in part a reaction to President Donald Trump’s aggressive push to mine both U.S. and international waters outside the international regulatory framework.”
On March 5, 2026, Minister Dr. Sai provided a formal letter to the Secretary General acknowledging receipt of her letter, as requested, and thanking her for the ISA’s recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State since the nineteenth century and the Council of Regency as its interim government.
On March 10, the Council of Regency filed a Motion for Leave to file Letters Supplement in Support of Motion for Reconsideration. These letters from the ISA Secretary General and the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Minister of Foreign Affairs affirm the legal standing of the Council of Regency as the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which is at the core of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion for Reconsideration. The legal standing of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency, as its interim government, prevents Judge Smith from invoking the political question doctrine.
Dr. Keanu Sai was again invited to do a podcast interview by Professor Pascal Lottaz on the subject of the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, a Neutral State. Professor Lottaz is an Assistant Professor for Neutrality Studies at the Waseda Institute for Advanced Study in Tokyo. He is a also a researcher at Neutrality Studies, where its YouTube channel, which airs their podcasts, has 153,000 subscribers worldwide.
The first podcast was titled “EX-Army Officer WAGES LAWFARE To End Illegal Occupation of Hawaii” that was posted December 5, 2024.
International law is the set of rules, norms, and standards that govern relations between sovereign and independent States, and international organizations. An example of an international organization is the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which is an intergovernmental organization comprised of government representatives of independent States.
The main sources of international law are international agreements called convention or treaties, international custom, and general principles of law recognized by civilized nations. International custom is also called customary international law, which is a set of unwritten, binding legal rules derived from the consistent, general practices of independent States, rather than formal written treaties.
There are two components of customary international law—the “what,” which is the specific practice of States, and the “why,” which is the reason a State does the specific practice. The former is called State practice, and the latter is called opinio juris where the States must act out of a sense of legal obligation and not just because it wants to. Opinio juris is Latin that means “opinion of law or practice.” The action of a State can include its silence, which is an act of acquiescence.
When the Permanent Court recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as an independent State and the Council of Regency as its interim government, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, it was an act taken by an intergovernmental organization. Professor Michael Akehurst, in his article “Custom as a Source of International Law,” stated that because intergovernmental organizations are comprised of representatives of States, “their practice is best regarded as the practice of States.” So, when none of the current 127 States that comprise the Permanent Court, which includes the United States, objected to the Permanent Court’s act of recognizing the Hawaiian Kingdom, they did so because of a legal obligation.
That legal obligation is that international law clearly states that the State continues to exist despite its government being militarily overthrown. This is why the State of Iraq continued to exist despite the United States military overthrow of the Iraqi government during the Second Gulf War. This was called the American occupation of Iraq. And that the only way the United States could acquire the territory and sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom is by a treaty of cession. There is no such treaty that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded its territory and sovereignty to the United States. There only exists the unlawful imposition of American laws over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 1898. Like any of the laws of a State, American laws have no effect outside of its territorial borders.
There are two significant acts by the Permanent Court that the United States did not object to. The first significant act are the Permanent Court’s annual reports from 2001-2011 that stated the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court for the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom arbitration was by virtue of Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, which established the Permanent Court. Article 47 states, “The jurisdiction of the Permanent Court may, within the conditions laid down in the regulations, be extended to disputes [with] non-Contracting Powers.” Under international law “Powers” and “States” are used interchangeably.
Because the Hawaiian Kingdom did not sign the 1907 Hague Convention, it is considered a non-Contracting Power. There are currently 125 Contracting Powers to the 1907 Hague Convention who are also Contracting States to the United Nations Charter. Of the 193 Member States of the United Nations, 68 are non-Contracting Powers to the 1907 Hague Convention like the Hawaiian Kingdom. Just as the Hawaiian Kingdom could access the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court to resolve an international dispute, so could these 68 States under Article 47.
The second significant act is the Permanent Court’s case description of the Larsen case on its website, which states:
Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency (“Hawaiian Kingdom”) on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Because the United States has not objected to the Permanent Court’s description of the case, it accepts the description as true and accurate. The case description states that the Hawaiian Kingdom, a non-Contracting Power, is represented by the Council of Regency as its Government. The 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States continues to exist. And that the imposition of American municipal laws within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom is UNLAWFUL.
In the federal lawsuit of Students for Fair Admissions v. Kamehameha Schools, there is a collision of Hawaiian Kingdom laws and American laws. The plaintiff is relying on American laws in its lawsuit, the defendant exists under Hawaiian Kingdom laws, and the federal court is under American law, which the United States, under customary international law, recognizes as UNLAWFUL.
These were the grounds for the Hawaiian Kingdom to intervene by filing a motion on January 21, 2026, in the case to ensure the protection of Kamehameha Schools under Hawaiian Kingdom law as well as customary international law that binds the United States. When Judge Micah Smith denied the Hawaiian Kingdom’s motion to intervene on January 23, 2026, claiming that it gave rise to the political question doctrine, the Hawaiian Kingdom filed a motion for reconsideration on February 3, 2026, because Judge Smith committed a “manifest error” in his judgment.
In its motion for reconsideration, the Hawaiian Kingdom showed why the Judge was in error because the political question only arises if the United States does not currently recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency as its government, BUT IT DID.
In the motion, it explained that not only did the United States recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency by opinio juris—customary international law as already explained, but also by an executive agreement, being a treaty under international law, where the United States requested permission from the Hawaiian Kingdom, WHICH IT GAVE, to have access to all records and pleadings of the Larsen case. The Deputy Secretary General of the Permanent Court, Phyllis Hamilton, brokered the agreement.
Coincident to the granting of permission was the United States recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency as its interim government. In laymen’s terms, you can’t request permission without first recognizing that you are asking permission from a government that is a defendant in an international arbitration case at the Permanent Court.
It would appear that Judge Smith hit the “pause button.” Where he quickly issued the judgment denying the Hawaiian Kingdom’s motion to intervene just two days after the filing, we are now at seventeen days since the filing of the motion for reconsideration.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 16, 2026
Today, the Council of Regency, as interim government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, filed its Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Reconsideration with the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i, seeking permission of Judge Micah Smith to file its supplemental brief in support of its motion for reconsideration.
The Hawaiian Kingdom explains that the supplemental brief provides vital case law, analysis and context necessary for Judge Smith’s consideration regarding its motion for reconsidering its decision that the Hawaiian Kingdom’s motion to intervene raises the political question doctrine, which prevents the federal court from accepting the filing. The political question doctrine only arises if the United States executive branch has not recognized the sovereignty of a country such as Palestine.
In its motion for reconsideration, the Hawaiian Kingdom provided clear and irrefutable evidence that the United States recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State since the nineteenth century and the Council of Regency as its government by an executive agreement, which is a treaty under international law. As explained in the Hawaiian Kingdom’s motion for reconsideration, this executive agreement granted the United States access to all records and pleadings of the Larsen case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The Hawaiian Kingdom also provided clear evidence that the United States, along with the other 126 Contracting States to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, also recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency under customary international law—opinio juris.
The Hawaiian Kingdom’s supplemental brief covered two additional areas for Judge Smith to consider. First, the significance of the 1937 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. Belmont, on executive agreements, and second, the legal status of the Kamehameha Schools trust under Hawaiian Kingdom law, but the legal status of the current administration of the trust under American law, which is a war crime under international law.
United States v. Belmont (1937)
In its supplemental brief, the Hawaiian Kingdom drew attention to the circumstances of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Belmont, which is similar in circumstance to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s executive agreement with the United States. In Belmont, the Supreme Court stated:
We take judicial notice of the fact that, coincident with the assignment set forth in the complaint, the President recognized the Soviet Government.
The assignment was effected by an exchange of diplomatic correspondence between the Soviet Government and the United States. The purpose was to bring about a final settlement of the claims and counterclaims between the Soviet Government and the United States, and it was agreed that the Soviet Government would take no steps to enforce claims against American nationals, but all such claims were released and assigned to the United States, with the understanding that the Soviet Government was to be duly notified of all amounts realized by the United States from such release and assignment.
And in respect of what was done here, the Executive had authority to speak as the sole organ of that government. The assignment and the agreements in connection therewith did not, as in the case of treaties, as that term is used in the treaty-making clause of the Constitution (Art. II, § 2), require the advice and consent of the Senate.
We held that, although this might not be a treaty requiring ratification by the Senate, it was a compact negotiated and proclaimed under the authority of the President, and as such was a “treaty” within the meaning of the Circuit Court of Appeals Act, the construction of which might be reviewed upon direct appeal to this court.
Like the assignment being effected by the executive agreement with the Soviet Government, the permission for the United States to access all records and pleadings in the Larsen case was effected by the executive agreement with the Hawaiian Kingdom Government. Coincident to both executive agreements was the United States recognition of the Soviet Government and the Hawaiian Kingdom Government.
Kamehameha Schools established under Hawaiian Kingdom law
By her last Will and Testament dated October 31, 1883, with two codicils dated October 4, 1884, and October 9, 1884, Bernice Pauahi Bishop established a mandate “to erect and maintain in the Hawaiian Islands two schools, each for boarding and day scholars, one for boys and one for girls, to be known as, and called the Kamehameha Schools,” and “to devote a portion of each years income to the support and education of orphans, and others in indigent circumstances, giving the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood.” She also told her husband, Charles Reed Bishop who became Chair of the Trustees, that aboriginal Hawaiians should have preference in admission. He stated this in his speech at the first Founder’s Day celebration in 1888.
The Will with two codicils were admitted to probate by the Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Kingdom on December 2, 1884. According to article fourteen of the will, she designated Charles R. Bishop, Samuel M. Damon, Charles M. Hyde, Charles M. Cooke, and William O. Smith to be her trustees. On March 4, 1885, these individuals accepted their duties as trustees. The Will provides “that vacancies shall be filled by the choice of a majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court,” and that annual reports “of all receipts and expenditures, and of the condition of said schools,” shall be made “to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or the highest judicial officer in the country.”
After President Grover Cleveland completed a presidential investigation into the overthrow of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by United States troops on January 17, 1893, he sent a message to the Congress that the insurgency calling itself the provisional government was “neither a government de facto [in fact] nor de jure [in law],” and that it “owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States.” The President entered into an executive agreement with the Queen where he committed that the United States would reinstate the Queen in office as the Executive Monarch, and the Queen committed that after she’s reinstated she’ll grant amnesty to the insurgents. Due to political wrangling in the Congress, however, the President was unable to carry out its obligation under the executive agreement, which is a treaty under international law, and the insurgents did not receive amnesty.
On July 4, 1894, the insurgency changed its name from the provisional government to the Republic of Hawai‘i and continued to seek annexation by the United States. On March 4, 1897, President Cleveland was succeeded by President William McKinley. President McKinley’s administration favored annexing the Hawaiian Islands for military purposes. At the height of the Spanish-American War, the Congress enacted a joint resolution of annexation on July 6, 1898, and President McKinley signed it into law the following day. The underlying problem is that any law enacted by the Congress has no effect beyond the borders of the United States. Only by means of a treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom, not with the insurgents, could the United States acquire Hawaiian sovereignty and territory. A joint resolution is not a treaty. Regarding the limits of American laws, the Supreme Court, in Belmont, stated, “our Constitution, laws and policies have no extraterritorial operation unless in respect of our own citizens.”
In 1988, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), in a legal opinion, concluded that it is “unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution. Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea.” The OLC stated:
The constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in the Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act…Only by means of treaties, it was asserted, can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force—confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it is enacted.
On April 30, 1900, the Congress renamed the Republic of Hawai‘i to the Territory of Hawai‘i and began to impose American laws in the Hawaiian Kingdom in violation of international law. In 1959, the Congress renamed the Territory of Hawai‘i to the State of Hawai‘i. The State of Hawai‘i is the direct successor of the provisional government and their laws, being American laws, have no effect within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Under international law, the imposition of American laws is a war crime called usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation.
Usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation was listed as a war crime in 1919 by the Commission on Responsibilities of the Paris Peace Conference that was established by the Allied and Associated Powers at war with Germany and its allies during the First World War. The Commission was especially concerned with acts perpetrated in occupied territories against non-combatants and civilians. Usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation is the imposition of the laws and administrative policies of the Occupying State over the territory of the Occupied State. The crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation was referred to by Judge Blair of the American Military Commission in a separate opinion in the Justice Case, holding that this “rule is incident to military occupation and was clearly intended to protect the inhabitants of any occupied territory against the unnecessary exercise of sovereignty by a military occupant.”
Because the Queen was not reinstated and the insurgency did not receive amnesty, the Bishop Estate was incapable of operating after January 17, 1893, because the majority of its trustees were insurgents. Furthermore, the Will only provides for the appointment of trustees to be done by the Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court and no other. When Charles Hyde, one of the trustees, died October 13, 1898, the Territory of Hawai‘i Supreme Court appointed Alfred W. Carter his successor on January 6, 1900. First, the Territorial Supreme Court is not the Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court, and second, Walter F. Frear and William A. Whiting who appointed Carter were insurgents and members of the provisional government. All appointments of trustees after January 17, 1893, were not in accordance with the Will of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, and the operation of Bishop Estate under American law did not affect or change the Estate as it stood on January 17th. The Bishop Estate lapsed into abeyance on January 17, 1893.
The current Trustees of the Kamehameha Schools were all appointed by the State of Hawai‘i Probate Court under American law. Their appointment of Jack Wong as Chief Executive Officer in 2014 was made by Trustees appointed under American law but the Kamehameha Schools trust is under Hawaiian Kingdom law. In its supplemental brief, the Hawaiian Kingdom explained that the current standing of the administration of Kamehameha Schools can be remedied under the provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom so long as the selection of trustees by a probate court are not inconsistent with Hawaiian Kingdom law.
On October 10, 2014, the Council of Regency proclaimed the provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Proclamation stated, “And we do hereby proclaim from the date of this proclamation all laws that have emanated from an unlawful legislature since the insurrection began on July 6, 1887 to the present, to include United States legislation, shall be the provisional laws of the Realm subject to ratification by the Legislative Assembly of the Hawaiian Kingdom once assembled, with the express proviso that these provisional laws do not run contrary to the express, reason and spirit of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom prior to July 6, 1887, the international laws of occupation and international humanitarian law, and if it be the case they shall be regarded as invalid and void.”
The obligatory nature of this Proclamation is expressed in section 6 of the Hawaiian Civil Code that states:
The laws are obligatory upon all persons, whether subjects of this kingdom, or citizens or subjects of any foreign State, while within the limits of this kingdom, except so far as exception is made by the laws of nations in respect to Ambassadors or others. The property of all such persons, while such property is within the territorial jurisdiction of this kingdom, is also subject to the laws.”
The Council of Regency would consider that the selection of Kamehameha Schools Trustees by a State of Hawai‘i Probate Court, and not the Supreme Court, “do not run contrary to the express, reason and spirit of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom prior to July 6, 1887, the international laws of occupation and international humanitarian law” given the circumstances for that change.
The Council of Regency is represented by Hawaiian attorney Edward Halealoha Ayau of the Law Office of Edward Halealoha Ayau.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Dr. David “Keanu” Sai, Ph.D.
Chairman of the Council of Regency
Acting Minister of the Interior
Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim
Email: interior@hawaiiankingdom.org
The federal courts of the United States represent a higher level of standard than courts within the various States of the American Union. What is at its core is the “rule of law” that provides legal predictability, continuity, and coherence; reasoned decisions made through publicly visible processes and based faithfully on the law. U.S. District Courts, unlike the Appellate Courts, have trials that apply the rule of law in filings, proceedings and evidence. You don’t have trials at the Appellate Court.
Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses representations to the Court. “By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper…an attorney…certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.”
If an attorney files any written motion that violates these conditions, he/she can be sanctioned by the Court under Rule 11(c)(1), which states, “If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.” In other words, if a motion is frivolous, the attorney can be sanctioned.
The basis of this rule would also apply to Declarations made in support of a motion where the declarant would have committed the crime of perjury if what was stated in the Declaration are false statements. This comes under U.S. Federal law 18 U.S.C. §1621 and §1623. This is why in Declarations filed with Federal Courts it states, “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.”
Rule 11(b)(2) applies to the content of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion for Reconsideration, which is “warranted by existing law.” In the District Courts, along with constitutional provisions and statutes, existing law includes Federal Court decisions that came before the Appellate Courts or the Supreme Court.
In the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion for Reconsideration, it provided clear evidence of two instances that the United States recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency as its government while administrative proceedings took place at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom (1999-2001).
The first instance was by executive agreement between the Council of Regency and the United States, by its Embassy in the Netherlands, that provided permission to the United States to access all records and pleadings of the case. Under international law, this is called an executive agreement, by exchange of notes. Pertinent Supreme Court decisions on this subject of executive agreements that were cited in the Motion for Reconsideration are United States v. Belmont (1937), United States v. Pink (1942), and American Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi (2003).
In Garamendi, the Supreme Court stated, “our cases have recognized that the President has authority to make ‘executive agreements’ with other countries, requiring no ratification by the Senate […] this power having been exercised since the early years of the Republic.”
In Belmont, the Supreme Court stated, “an international compact […] is not always a treaty which requires the participation of the Senate.”
And in Pink, the Supreme Court stated, “all international compacts and agreements’ are to be treated with similar dignity, for the reason that ‘complete power over international affairs is in the national government, and is not and cannot be subject to any curtailment or interference on the part of the several states.”
The significance on the executive agreement between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States is stated by the Supreme Court in Garamendi where, “valid executive agreements are fit to preempt state law, just as treaties are.” In other words, the executive agreement negates the legal existence of the State of Hawai‘i, and the consequences of this executive agreement where the United States recognizes the continued existence of the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom over the Hawaiian Islands is clearly stated by the Supreme Court in Jones v. United States (1890). In Jones, the Supreme Court stated:
By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. […] He is the mere organ by whom that will is communicated. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the courts.”
In Jones, the Supreme Court also stated that recognition of the sovereignty of a State “conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens, and subjects of that government.” In other words, this executive agreement of recognition binds District Court Judge Micah Smith, the Plaintiffs Student for Fair Admission and the Defendant Kamehameha Schools and that it “can never be examinable by the courts” of the United States, which includes State courts.
The Court, together with the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, are not the contracting parties to the executive agreement, but are bound not to question or examine it, unless they can provide evidence that there is no such executive agreement ever made. To do so, however, is to have the United States Attorney General intervene in the case and provide evidence that there is no such thing as an executive agreement between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States, a claim that would be considered frivolous under Rule 11(b). Therefore, the U.S. Attorney General, after intervening in the lawsuit, will have to counter the evidential basis of the executive agreement in the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion for Reconsideration. As a contracting party to the executive agreement, only the United States can examine the evidence of the executive agreement.
The second instance was by opio juris—customary international law where none of the Contracting States to the treaty that formed the Permanent Court, to include the United States, did not object to the Permanent Court’s recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency as its government in order for it to have established the arbitration tribunal on June 9, 2000. This was explained in a legal opinion by Federico Lenzerini, a professor of international law at the University of Siena, Italy, which was Exhibit 1 attached to his Declaration that was filed with the Motion for Reconsideration.
The Supreme Court has recognized that the writings of legal scholars are a source of customary international law. In the Paquete Habana case (1900), the Supreme Court stated, “the works of jurists and commentators, who by years of labor, research and experience, have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.”
These scholars also include Professor Matthew Craven’s legal opinion on the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law, which is Exhibit B attached to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion to Intervene; Professor Federico Lenzerini’s legal opinion on the authority of the Council of Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom attached as Exhibit D to the Motion to Intervene; and Professor William Schabas’ legal opinion on war crimes related to the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom attached as Exhibit E to the Motion to Intervene.
As they say in the game of chess, checkmate, which is where there is no possible escape for the United States.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 3, 2026
Today, the Council of Regency, as interim government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, filed its Motion for Reconsideration with the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i, seeking reconsideration of Judge Micah Smith’s January 23, 2026, Order to deny the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion to Intervene in the case between Students for Fair Admissions and the Kamehameha Schools filed on January 21, 2026.
The Hawaiian Kingdom argues that the Court committed “manifest errors of law” including its misapplication of the political question doctrine at the intervention stage. Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only requires a legally protectable interest related to the subject of the action to permit intervention, conclusively established by the Hawaiian Kingdom in its initial Motion to Intervene. Judge Smith, in his Order, manifestly erred by stating that intervention would require adjudication of issues constitutionally committed to the political branches.
The political question doctrine bars federal courts from adjudicating disputes that are “textually committed” by the U.S. Constitution to another branch or lack judicially manageable standards to resolve. In the case of Hawai‘i, the court invoked this doctrine because prior courts asserted that the United States executive branch has not recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom. In this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom provides conclusive evidence that this is incorrect.
The United States did recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom during arbitration proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom from 1999-2001.
First, the United States explicitly recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency as a matter of opinio juris, under customary international law, when it did not object to the Permanent Court’s recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency before it formed the arbitration tribunal on June 9, 2000. An example of such customary international practice occurred when Palestine became a contracting State to the treaty on October 30, 2015, that formed the Permanent Court, the United States filed a protest with the Dutch Foreign Ministry that stated “the government of the United States considers that ‘the State of Palestine’ does not answer to the definition of a sovereign State and does not recognize it as such.”
Second, the United States explicitly recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State since the nineteenth century and the Council of Regency as its government when it entered into an executive agreement with the Council of Regency that allowed the United States, through its Embassy, in The Hague, Netherlands, to access records and pleadings of the case.
If Hawai‘i was legally the 50th State of the American Union and not the State of the Hawaiian Kingdom, customary international practice obligates the United States to have protested the Permanent Court’s recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence and the Council of Regency as its government. Customarily, its failure to protest, binds the United States’ (as well as all countries of the Permanent Court) recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency as its government.
Moreover, the United States would not be able to say that the State of Hawai‘i is lawful because at the center of the dispute between Larsen and the Hawaiian Kingdom was the unlawful imposition of American laws over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. On its website the Permanent Court described the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom case as:
Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency (“Hawaiian Kingdom”) on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The State Hawai‘i was established in 1959 by an American law, which would make its existence unlawful under international law.
In its arbitration award in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, the arbitration tribunal stated that “in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.”
The Permanent Court’s institutional recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom prevents the United States, under international law, from denying its existence today as a sovereign State, unless the United States can show it extinguished the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law. To have extinguished the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law it would have to show that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded or transferred its sovereignty and territory to the United States by a treaty of cession. There is no such evidence.
Significantly, NONE of the current 126 Contracting States to the treaty that formed the Permanent Court, to include the United States, objected to the Permanent Court’s conclusion that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that it is a non-Contracting State under Article 47 of the treaty permitting the Hawaiian Kingdom access to the Permanent Court. Article 47 states, the “jurisdiction of the Permanent Court may…be extended to disputes [with] non-Contracting Powers.” In international law, “Powers” is used interchangeably with “States.”
This means the following 126 States also recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency by opinio juris—customary international law:
Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechia, the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Pakistan, Palestine, Panama, Paraguay, the People’s Republic of China, Peru, Philippines, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Türkiye, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
All Hawaiian Kingdom treaty partners, to include the United States, are also Contracting States to the treaty that formed the Permanent Court, and these treaties have not been terminated. These treaties are also binding on the successor States of the Hawaiian Kingdom treaty partners. A successor State is a former colony of a State that gained its independence. Examples of successor States are Vietnam who was a former colony of France and New Zealand who was a former colony of Great Britain. Currently, the Hawaiian Kingdom has treaties with 153 Member States of the United Nations, of which 14 treaties are with original States and 139 treaties are with successor States.
Judge Smith’s Order created further manifest error when he prematurely and improperly expanded the court’s review for intervention, under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in stating that the Hawaiian Kingdom’s intervention made “arguments about the proper interpretation of federal law and the Constitution of the United States, and refer to materials that might aid in interpreting both,” and that Plaintiffs (SSFA) and Defendant (Kamehameha Schools) “are ably represented by counsel fully capable of submitting and raising arguments based on any such pertinent materials.”
In its Motion for Reconsideration, the Hawaiian Kingdom provides evidence that Kamehameha Schools explicitly decided not to represent the Hawaiian Kingdom’s interests as a sovereign and independent State under international law. Conversely, it defies reason to presume that Plaintiff SSFA would either raise or assert the application of Hawaiian Kingdom law resulting in the very extinguishment of its complaint. This decision prompted the Hawaiian Kingdom to file its motion to intervene, as it believes neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendant will adequately represent its interests.
The Hawaiian Kingdom references various legal cases and opinions, including State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo and United States v. Goo, which establish an evidentiary standard for proving the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a sovereign State. It also cites international law principles, treaties, and legal opinions conclusively establishingthe Hawaiian Kingdom’s claims. The Hawaiian Kingdom’s motion for reconsideration has met that evidentiary standard of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence.
The Hawaiian Kingdom requests Judge Smith to reconsider its denial of the motion to intervene, arguing that the court’s decision was based on manifest errors of law and that the Hawaiian Kingdom has a legally protectable interest in the case. It emphasizes the United States’ recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the failure of Kamehameha Schools to represent its interests as a basis to grant its motion to intervene.
The Council of Regency is represented by Hawaiian attorney Edward Halealoha Ayau of the Law Office of Edward Halealoha Ayau.
DOWNLOAD FILED HAWAIIAN KINGDOM PLEADINGS:
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Reconsideration
Declaration of Dr. David Keanu Sai with Exhibits 1-4
Declaration of Professor Niklaus Schweizer with Exhibit 1
Declaration of Professor Federico Lenzerini with Exhibits 1-2
MEDIA CONTACT:
Dr. David “Keanu” Sai, Ph.D.
Chairman of the Council of Regency
Acting Minister of the Interior
Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim
Email: interior@hawaiiankingdom.org
On January 15, 2026, the British Museum in London opened an exhibition on the Hawaiian Kingdom. The exhibition will last until May 25, 2026.