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.
Hopefully upon review by SCOTUS, and based upon the irrefutable information and evidence they will determine that the sovereign continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom was never extinguished and that the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom is indeed occupied by a foreign country. I cannot help but think if it wasn’t for Dr. Sai’s information to the Generals at the military installation here in Hawaii, how would they have known that they too were occupied by a foreign entity since 1871. The flag of the Hawaiian Kingdom was lowered irrespective of a proper transfer of sovereignty via a bilateral treaty. In America and Iraq and perhaps other countries, their flags were not lowered, but the political corruption and takeover had manifested and gone almost undetected by the general population. We are witnessing in real-time, the corruption of the US District Court system against Americans itself. As we gravitate away from the reliance of the United Nations and towards a more cooperative Board of Peace to resolve global concerns I remain hopeful that the Hawaiian Kingdom will one day take center stage not because we want to be seen, but because we adhered to the Queen’s word to Onipa’a and our Kupunas both past and present deserve the respect of the entire world!
There I said it. That’s my own personal mana’o. Have a blessed day!
WYK
I concur!
While America’s judicial courts ARE compromised at all levels, PDJT has made it clear he’s cleaning ’em up!
Certainly HOPE that *If* Dr. Sai’s statement is true (we know it is)– that “The LEGAL STANDING of the Hawaiian Kingdom & the Council of Regency, AS ITS INTERIM GOVERNMENT, PREVENTS Judge Smith from invoking the political question doctrine”– since that would mean Hawaii court rulings SHOULD swiftly reflect that too! 🙏🏼
Meanwhile, I can confirm that, at least our circuit court judges, CONTINUE TO PILLAGE w/o restraint, HIDING behind the faux “it’s a political question” excuse to DENY justice. 🤡
UNITED NATIONS: UN appears to have only been a propaganda tool for global elite so am happy to see the swift formation of the Board of Peace to tackle “occupied” Gaza Strip reconstruction w/ a $10 billion budget so far. And interestingly, the “UN Security Council” Resolution 2803 authorized the Board as a temporary body focused on Gaza until 2027.
Evidently, during March, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) presidency ROTATES. That’s why Melania Trump recently chaired a meeting titled “Children, Technology, and Education in Conflict”.
ALOHA Connection: Maui (esp. the summit of Haleakalā Volcano) is often referred to planet’s heart chakra due to its energy frequency matching the Schumann Resonance (7.8 cycles per second), the same as the human heart’s rhythm. Maybe that’s why Hawaii & especially Maui is often targeted?
Yet regardless of the pelleting, locals KEEP the level of respectful aloha alive– a high vibe. Plus, our acting Hawaiian Kingdom’s peaceful, law-based campaign has earned growing respect in international legal & human rights circles as a legitimate effort to end a prolonged occupation and restore sovereignty under international law.
Queen Liliuokalani et al WOULD BE SO PROUD!
💗
Just adding more mana’o:
Shouldn’t need to go to the SCOTUS. The lower court should adhere to the Supremacy Clause under the United States Constitution concerning international compacts and treatise. If there was an issue concerning adherence to the United States Supremacy Clause then the SCOTUS would opin as to whether or not the action is constitutional. This motion to intervene should be automatic in favor of the Council of Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom and then be challenged by the opposing party on evidence that would refute the claim of the Council of Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom that its sovereign continuity was never extinguished. A fair judge would’ve or should’ve ruled automatically in favor of the Council of Regency and allow the Plaintiff (SFFA) to show cause as to why the Council of Regency’s contention is misplaced and therefore denied. However, doing so would directly undermine the cabalist intention of manifest destiny. So the lower courts become the blockers or gate keepers and will prevent anything concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom’s sovereign independence from being heard. The Hawaiian Kingdom is outside of the United States realm and proper international respect should tilt toward another contracting state, not to the criminals within its state! This is so simple a child of reasonable intelligence could figure it out in short order, but because money is involved we buffer once again, might over right so to speak. Ho’omanawanui. But times they are a changing, and a new Commander in Chief is in office and old players, well they’ll be held accountable for their actions. And these students for fair admissions, they should learn a thing or two before trampling over issues they’re ignorant about. The ignorance of one becomes the burden of another. They act this way because they are void of hilahila, no shame!
Like the Kupuna say, pa’a ka waha, Hana ka lima, verify if that Olelo No’eau is true to form. If it were me putting forth a claim like these SFFA, and there were even a slightest bit of opposition, I’d ask for a stay in this present case until the Council of Regency’s is rendered moot based on intel gathered and just to be sure, verify who is providing the intel. And it has got to be more than uncle papa telling, awe we belong to America now! Although, SFFA, would proudly accept that as a bankable genuine issue of material fact. 😂
And, if anything, if the court is without adequate information it should on its own, Sua Sponte, transfer this matter to an Article II, court for proper jurisdiction. But no, this court will take jurisdiction be it proper or not because their financial puppet masters say he has proper jurisdiction over this matter.
Accountability is close and NCSWIC!
Po Pa’akiki, swing from the tree!
WYK
Exactly. We do NOT have fair judges bec’ they’re willingly part of the financial FRAUD. I’m aghast each time I go to ct about our hale. The BAR lawyers & judge are in cahoots! Recall even well mannered retired Judge Heen said he could not rule in favor of TRUTH since Hawaii’s ENTIRE “justice” system would crumble. So what do they do instead? DISBAR honest lawyers who defended Hawaiian Kingdom & Hawaiian Kingdom subjects — while pillaging homes. TRUTH & JUSTICE is an exhausting pursuit locally for sure. I have so much respect for the Sai Ohana for their decades pursuit! 🥴 What stamina! IMUA!
If the law is applied properly, it would never reach SCOTUS. The only options are 1) the Judge covers his behind and makes no ruling leaving the case in Limbo. 2) Respondent supports the motion and pleadings of the AHKG to cover their behinds. 3) The Judge complies with the law and does the unthinkable by transforming his court into an article 2 court in order to provide a fair trial. The AHKG just showed the Judge that the HK continues to exist and therefor ALL U.S. and State Courts cannot exist in HK territory including SCOTUS.
What’s CONFUSING (until one realizes a criminal cabal has been running HI & US+) is that US “Oath takers” [judges, law enforcement, s/elected leaders…] SWORE to uphold the US Constitution of which Article VI, Clause 2/ Supremacy Clause reads:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and ALL TREATIES MADE, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of ANY STATE to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
https://youtu.be/_EZlt6P9aS4?si=eZRDv2OyaFLSsIII
This MAKES TREATIES PART OF US DOMESTIC LAW on equal footing with the Constitution & FED statutes.
So since Treaties made under US authority ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND & take PRECEDENCE OVER conflicting STATE LAWS or constitutions & STATE JUDGES ARE REQUIRED TO ENFORCE THEM accordingly– (((how))) can #StateOfHawaii judges HIDE behind “it’s a political Q” claim or IGNORE? 👀
And since there’s NO “treaty” of annexation or cession between US & Hawaiian Kingdom, the lingering “1849 TREATY of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation” between US & Hawaiian Kingdom terms HAS BEEN VIOLATED by the US!
Plus the Presumption of Continuity holds that a State (country), ONCE RECOGNIZED AS SOVEREIGN (HK on 11/28/1843), is presumed to CONTINUE existing UNLESS its extinction is clearly & lawfully demonstrated by a TREATY of cession w/ BURDEN OF PROOF on the party claiming the state has “ceased to exist”. Hence, lacking PROOF, the Hawaiian Kingdom therefore continues to exist, as the Permanent Court of Arbitration recognition PROVED back in 1999.
Yet HK realized early on that it COULD NOT GET RELIEF UNTIL the Court transforms itself from an Article III Court into an Article II OCCUPATION Court because it’s situated in the territory of the HAWAIIAN KINGDOM & not the US …
So WILL the Hawaiian Kingdom (((continue))) to be IGNORED by the US violators w/o consequences? Or as HK Kumu Sai & US PDJT have insisted ‘MILITARY is the only way’ to FORCE compliance? Seems so, YET our faux courts & law enforcers still IGNORE THEIR OATHS, implying sadly that military under MG Logan’s command is clearly NOT fully in charge—YET. 😵💫
Here’s a good relevant HK post from 2022:
https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/a-spectacular-mic-drop-hawaiian-kingdom-withdraws-complaint-in-federal-court-because-of-war-crimes-committed-by-defendants-and-the-court/
*WISH* our acting Council of Regency WAS REALLY “recognized” as our Hawaiian Kingdom Gov during occupation. 😑
There are clearly pockets of success throughout Hawaii yet NOT visible enuf to STOP their “lawfare” aka crimes against humanity that includes pillage.
I would like volunteer to be a ‘Lance Larsen’ of 2026! Does that come with HK representation? Can it be a CLASS ACTION suit to gain greater attention & momentum?
Please enlighten us, Kumu Sai with a new post.
🌴