On September 4, 2025, the Civil Beat published an article “Kamehameha Schools’ Admission Policies May Face Legal Challenge.” They reported:
A conservative mainland group whose lawsuit against Harvard ended affirmative action in college admissions is now building support in Hawai‘i to take on Kamehameha Schools’ policies that give preference to Native Hawaiian students. Students for Fair Admissions, based in Virginia, recently launched the website KamehamehaNotFair.org. It says that the admission preference “is so strong that it is essentially impossible for a non-Native Hawaiian student to be admitted to Kamehameha.” “We believe that focus on ancestry, rather than merit or need, is neither fair nor legal, and we are committed to ending Kamehameha’s unlawful admissions policies in court,” the website says.
Students for Fair Admissions won a lawsuit against Harvard University in 2023 that ruled race-based affirmative action programs in most college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Clause provides “nor shall any State … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Although the purpose of the Clause was to protect freed slaves after the Civil War from discrimination by the Southern States, it also applied to individuals in similar situations being treated equally by American law across all State of the Union.
Affirmative action and policies promote equal opportunity in order to counteract past discrimination and has been applied to college admissions. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, affirmative action is “not a type of discrimination but a justification for a policy or practice based on race, sex, or national origin. An affirmative action plan must be designed to achieve the purposes of Title VII; i.e., to break down old patterns of segregation and hierarchy and to overcome the effects of past or present practices, policies, or other barriers to equal employment opportunity.” The U.S. Supreme Court, however, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University, in 2023, ruled affirmative action to be unconstitutional. Kamehameha Schools is now being targeted by the same group that won its case against Harvard University.
Doe v. Kamehameha
In 2003, Kamehameha Schools faced its first legal challenge for its admission policy in Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate. The plaintiff, being an unnamed applicant that was denied admission as a student because he was not of Hawaiian ancestry, lost in the federal district court in Hawai‘i. An appeal was made to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the decision was reversed in favor of the plaintiff by a three-judge panel in 2005, where the Court held that Kamehameha Schools’ admission policy, with its preference for Native Hawaiians, constituted unlawful race discrimination under federal law. Kamehameha Schools appealed the decision to a 15-judge panel, called En Banc, at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Court affirmed Kamehameha Schools admission policy as lawful on December 5, 2006. The Court concluded:
King Kamehameha I, on his death bed, is reported to have said, “Tell my people I have planted in the soil of our land the roots of a plan for their happiness.” Princess Pauahi Bishop and Her Legacy at 122. His great granddaughter, Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, echoed that sentiment when she established, through her will, the Kamehameha Schools. Because the Schools are a wholly private K-12 educational establishment, whose preferential admissions policy is designed to counteract the significant, current educational deficits of Native Hawaiian children in Hawaii, and because in 1991 Congress clearly intended § 1981 to exist in harmony with its other legislation providing specially for the education of Native Hawaiians, we must conclude that the admissions policy is valid under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
In its decision, the Court agreed with Kamehameha Schools position that it should review this case with “the more deferential Title VII test for evaluating affirmative action plans, with variations appropriate to the educational context.”
While the Plaintiff’s appeal was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, Kamehameha Schools settled the lawsuit by paying $7 million. The agreement was signed in May of 2008, thus bringing the lawsuit to a close. Because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action in admission policies of educational institutions to be unlawful, Kamehameha Schools cannot rely on their previous position in Doe v. Kamehameha.
Radical Change in the Legal Terrain
Not only has the legal terrain changed for American law and affirmative action, the legal terrain also changed for Hawai‘i because it is now legally proven that Hawai‘i was never a part of the territory of the United States but rather an Occupied State under international law.
The writings of scholars, under international law, is regarded as law-determining and not law making. According to Professor Malcolm Shaw, a British subject, “Because of the lack of supreme authorities and institutions in the international legal order, the responsibility is all the greater upon publicists of the various nations to inject an element of coherence and order into the subject as well as to question the direction and purposes of the rules.” The United States Supreme Court understood the significance of the writings of scholars in international law. In the 1900 Paquette Habana case, the Supreme Court stated:
International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations; and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators, who by years of labor, research and experience, have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which 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.
The significance of the legal opinion by Professor Matthew Craven, a British subject, on the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law, the legal opinion by Professor Federico Lenzerini, an Italian citizen, on the legitimacy of the Council of Regency, and the legal opinion by Professor William Schabas, a Canadian citizen, on war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom under the American occupation since 1893, are that all three legal opinions are written by publicists who are scholars and professors in international law. Also included is Dr. Keanu Sai’s chapter “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire” in Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age that was published in December of 2024 by Oxford University Press. Oxford University Press recognizes Dr. Sai as a scholar. As such, these writings constitute a source of international law. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “the works of jurists and commentators [is considered] trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.”
Of note is Professor Schabas’ legal opinion on war crimes where he specifically addresses the unlawful imposition of American laws, which he refers to as the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation. American laws include administrative measures, policies, and court decisions. This renders the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University irrelevant. Even the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, emphatically stated:
Neither the Constitution nor the 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. As a member of the family of nations, the right and power of the United States in that field are equal to the right and power of the other members of the international family. Otherwise, the United States is not completely sovereign.
Civil Rights under Hawaiian Kingdom Law
As an Occupied State, only Hawaiian Kingdom law applies over Hawaiian territory, and the Kamehameha Schools is a trust that established under and by virtue of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In the matter of the will of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, the Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court accepted the trust on March 4, 1885. The Kamehameha Schools for Boys opened in 1887 and for Girls in 1894.
During a speech at the Schools first celebration of Founder’s Day on December 19, 1888, Charles Reed Bishop, chair of the original trustees and widow of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, stated that the Princess established the Kamehameha Schools “in order that her own people might have the opportunity for fitting themselves for such competition, and be able to hold their own in a manly and friendly way, without asking any favors which they were not likely to receive, these schools were provided for, in which Hawaiians have the preference, and which she hoped they would value and take the advantages of as fully as possible.” The speech was printed in the Daily Bulletin Weekly Summary newspaper, Honolulu (December 24, 1888).
This admission policy was established because of the intent of the Princess. It is not based on her will. Her will did not address the preference of admitting students of Hawaiian ancestry, but rather providing financial assistance “giving the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood.” The significance of this speech and its publication in a newspaper makes the intent of the Princess publicly known throughout the kingdom.
Under Hawaiian Kingdom law, this admission policy of preference for students that are aboriginal Hawaiian, both pure and part, is lawful. There are three Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court cases that address native or aboriginal Hawaiians within the legal framework of civil rights under Hawaiian constitutional law. These cases are Naone v. Thurston, 1 Haw. 392 (1856) and Rex v. Booth, 2 Haw. 616 (1863) that are appellate cases, while Rex v. Henry H. Sawyer was a criminal trial that came before the Supreme Court at its July Term in 1859. Under Hawaiian Kingdom law, the Supreme Court served not only as an appellate court but also as a trial court.
In Rex v. Booth, the Court addressed the claim of race-based legislation, also called special legislation, which was argued by the defence to be a violation of native or aboriginal Hawaiians’ civil rights under Hawaiian laws. The defense argued, “‘It is an axiom in all constitutional Governments, that all legislative power emanates from the people; the Legislature acts by delegated authority, and only as the agent of the people ;’ that the Hawaiian Constitution was founded by the people; ‘that the Government of this Kingdom proceeds directly from the people, was ordained and established by the people,’ and that it is against all reason and justice to suppose or presume for one moment, that the native subjects of this Kingdom ever entrusted the Legislature with the power to enact such a law as that under discussion.” The Court responded, “Here is a grave mistake—a fundamental error—which is no doubt the source of much misconception. These ideas run through a large part of the case made by the defense, and much of the argument and reasoning predicated upon them, possesses no weight whatever.”
The Court discerns the legal framework of civil rights under Hawaiian constitutional law from other countries, like the United States, that have a republican form of government, which is governance of and for the people. The Hawaiian Kingdom is not a republic but rather a constitutional and limited monarchy. The Court also underscores the Hawaiian Kingdom’s approach to balancing civil rights, legislative authority, and the welfare of its native population within the framework of its Constitution. The Court clarified that civil rights and equality must be interpreted within the broader context of the Hawaiian Constitution, allowing for laws that address specific needs, such as protecting aboriginal Hawaiians, as long as they promote the welfare of the nation.
Booth provides the legal basis for the Kamehameha Schools policy to give preferential acceptance of students who are Hawaiian subjects of pure or part aboriginal blood. While the Court, in Booth, referred to special legislation, it would be called a special policy regarding aboriginal Hawaiians because the Kamehameha Schools is not a legislative body but a private trust. As a private trust, under Hawaiian Kingdon law, it must still adhere to the legal framework of civil rights under Hawaiian constitutional law and that the special policy of admission promotes the welfare of the nation. This is the Hawaiian law version of affirmative action on its terms.
How Kamehameha Schools can Prevail under Hawaiian Kingdom Law
In 1994, the Intermediate Court of Appeals heard an appeal, in State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo, where the defendant was challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court because of the illegality of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government in 1893. The Appellate Court concluded that “it was incumbent on Defendant to present evidence supporting his claim. Lorenzo has presented no factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature. Consequently, his argument that he is subject solely to the Kingdom’s jurisdiction is without merit, and the lower court correctly exercised jurisdiction over him.”
Since 1994, the Lorenzo case became a precedent case that served as the basis for denying defendants’ motions to dismiss that challenged the jurisdiction of State of Hawai‘i courts because defendants provided no evidence of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a State under international law. Even the federal courts apply the Lorenzo case. The Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage (2014), clarified the evidentiary burden that the Lorenzo case placed upon defendants. The Court states:
Lorenzo held that, for jurisdictional purposes, should a defendant demonstrate a factual or legal basis that the [Hawaiian Kingdom] “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.
Kamehameha Schools can prevail because it has access to all this information from the public domain that provides a “factual or legal basis” that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State “in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,” and that it is a trust “of that sovereign state.”
Well researched, as always!
Would be GREAT to have Kamehameha Trust/schools on board citing the same “Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exists” (presumption of continuity) international law EVIDENCE! What a mighty, well-funded PUSHBACK that would be! WWG1WGA!🔥
I don’t understand why they don’t?
They should read Bernice Pauahiʻs will in her ōwī hand writing the words
I NA KEIKI O KA AINA
IT IS HER WAY OF MAKING SURE EVERY KID BORN OF OUR HAWAIʻI. IS ABLE TO ATTEND
KE ALIʻI BERNICE PAUAHI
BISHOP
Simple words keep politics out
The KAMEHAMEHA SCHIOOLS
The danger of that, is it’s open to American translation. Citizens of the occupiers, illegally in our kingdom as a violation of art. 49 of Geneva Convention IV, could argue they ARE children of the land, as they were born or even live here. The only real way for Kamehameha schools / Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop estates to win this, is by showing that domestic US laws have no jurisdiction in the sovereign albeit occupied Hawaiian Kingdom. Otherwise, they may end up having to abandon Hawaiian student admission policies or settle out of court again, which will just cause more non-Hawaiians to sue for a quick paycheck.
Just saw this Island News segment on the NATIVE HAWAIIAN Convention being held in Washington state currently! Says that next year it will be held in Hawaii, then later in other states. It appears there’s some major drumming up of enthusiasm for HK culture, rights & responsibility. All the HI news & “Ali’i Trust” organizations attended…
https://youtu.be/mQ85v-_SE1U?si=jjW9lXbLKVeFBz0R
Wondering also *if* these efforts are to help LURE our kanaka home? Recall DHHL Kali Watson actively BEGAN in 2022 (w/ $600M Act 279 appropriation) to make available homesteads finally!– and those efforts are STILL going strong! For example…
Several significant projects are currently underway or nearing completion. The Puʻuhona homestead community in Wailuku, Maui, is a major milestone, with the first phase of 52 lots awarded in 2024, marking the first homestead awards in 17 years.
Other key projects include the Kaʻuluokahaʻi and Kaupeʻa developments on Oʻahu, the Laʻi ʻŌpua project on the Big Island (planning for over 400 new leases), the Lealiʻi project in Lahaina (planning for 181 new leases), and the Waiehu Mauka project on Maui (planning for over 300 units, including subsistence ag lots).
On Kauaʻi, the department is developing 84 townhouses.
The department is also working to RECLAIM LANDS FROM THE MILITARY, such as those at Pōhakuloa and Lālāmilo, which are being returned and will be developed.
Hey folks– Here’s an VERY INSIGHTFUL behind-the-scenes commentary by Leon Siu about the Native Hawaiian Convention.
One (((HOT))) topic NOT PERMITTED to discuss was Ea/Sovereignty!
[[[Bec’ it IS covertly happening? Or? 🤔]]]
HERE ARE A FEW KEY POINTS MADE:
*There were many allusions to Ea (food sovereignty, economic sovereignty, health, education, lands, etc.)
*Ea was an underlying CONCERN for many convention goers yet convention’s programming STAYED AWAY FROM ADDRESSING the hot topic.
*ONLY PANEL that had some bearing to the Ea topic was (((STILL))) PROMOTING “Federal Recognition”– of which only 4/40 or so supported it. When asked who wanted EA- a dozen supported those efforts. The rest were either undecided or ?
*There were about 40 people in the audience, inc. President Bumpy Kanahele, VP Brandon Makaʻawaʻawa (& others from Nation of Hawaii), Makaio Villanueva, Nani Peterson, etc. “who sat patiently through OHA’s broken-record presentation”.
*Someone on the panel inquired about the UN’s decolonization process OPTION. Siu was ready to give an updated YET the new OHA interim executive director & moderator THEN ABRUPTLY ENDED THE MEETING.
Read Siu’s full reflection here:
https://mailchi.mp/1f5295e60153/the-tide-is-turning-11042994
I know people who have attended these Native Hawaiian conventions in previous years, and according to them, the topic of our occupation never comes up. Typically it’s mostly a cultural fair.
It would be nice if Regent Sai would be able to attend these as a speaker, or maybe even a representative of the Council of Regency, to spread the word, since there are more Hawaiians abroad now than in the Hawaiian Kingdom & that’s likely where efforts should be focused now, especially because most people here in the Kingdom, who would be open to the truth, likely already know we are occupied… its Hawaiians abroad who are unaware.
Likewise, I would be a little cautious about Leon Siu, he is after representing a fraudulent Hawaiian government, as Regent Sai is the only one who followed Kingdom law in forming the Council of Regency. In other words, he’s committing treason and also confusing people both in the Kingdom and abroad, and honestly causing a bit of embarrassment for our people and our legitimate Kingdom government, by making it seem like we don’t have our sh*t together enough, to the point that we have separate groups appearing to be governments, when really we only have one. He’s also causing prominent Hawaiians in the Kingdom, who have a public voice and reach both in the Kingdom and out, to believe his government and way of thinking … such as kumu Hina for example, who is very vocal about Hawaiian issues, but whom I’ve never seen openly mention that we are illegally occupied. She did an interview with an American YouTuber not long ago, that has a large following and while Kimu Hina brought up cultural issues, she failed to even once mention our occupied state and that would have been such a good opportunity to spread the word to a broad audience… a failed opportunity.
Aloha, Aloha 🙂
I was merely ‘reporting’ on an attendee’s perception & wanted to mention the Kanaka in attendance & their perspectives.
Law & Orders certainly ARE the straight & narrow path back to sovereignty, guaranteed by the Presumption of Continuity international law & lack of any valid signed treaty. Plus, those efforts are FINALLY backed by a freedom-loving CIC & ‘his’ military.
For the Kanaka in attendance, I was glad to hear only a few still backed the ‘federal tribal recognition’ route. Yet do the remaining ‘groups’ innerstand WHAT has transpired by Dr. Sai’s efforts? Given that we ARE under a covert COG military operation, suppose free speech on that topic HAS been stifled.
Kumu Sai has shared over the years how his approach has morphed, on his own learning journey. He compared it to FINALLY playing baseball with baseball rules (or something like that). Ultimately it was calling out the MILITARY to finally do what they were supposed to do– once they “occupied” HK from 1893! Meanwhile, HK’s acting Council of Regency procedurally began reestablishing itself– lawfully too. BRAVO!
Hence, I think LS is still fixated on his idea that UN brings the solution. Yet those who’ve studied up know that “MILITARY IS THE ONLY WAY” which goes back to the very beginning.
“Fraud vitiates whatever it touches” Morris v. House, 32 Tex. 492 (1870), and that limitations begin to run from time the fraud is discovered or could have been discovered […]. Quinn v. Press, 135 Tex. 60, 140 S.W.2d 438 (1940).
I’m just trying not to judge folks to harshly since I’m THANKFUL for ALL who HAVE been outspoken about “the wrongs” that NEED to be righted. Plus, I taught students the FALSE narrative curriculum before– so I have NO right to cast any pōhaku! 🙄
Optimistically, we MUST be getting close to public announcements… Then ALL of us will naturally realign on the same shared mission. 🎉
I don’t think a determination can be made in this case and should be considered moot until the Hawaiian Kingdom Juridical process is reestablished & the U.S. Occupation comes to an end. Ku’u mana’o
Humm. Green gone & Lt. Gov Luke in charge through 10/28. Let’s see *if* yet again another threat/emergency transpires during his absence. 🤔That appears to be the pattern.
https://governor.hawaii.gov/newsroom/office-of-the-governor-news-release-governor-green-to-meet-with-federal-leaders-in-washington/
Seems to me we are living in several different realities.
1) The continuation of the United States running The State of Hawaii Government and Josh Green making deals with the United States and Military. 2) Those who have information on Keanu Sai and the Hawaiian Kingdom.
3) People have no idea about the illegal occupation.
4) Older Hawaiian locals yearning for our Hawaiian Kingdom.
5) People who think Hawaii is America.
While the State of Hawaii Government Attorney Anne Lopez refuse to acknowledge the illegal occupation.
And the Military also refusal to bring Hawaiian Kingdom law into compliance.
And the President of the United States claiming a political matter in 2018.
Were stuck in the middle waiting for something to give.
The United States knows they have all the Military power and continues to ignore us. Do they want some kind of deal? I mean how can you deal with a country who have the power to obliterate us. How can the United States help other countries around the world and bring peace. And yet the same time ignore their own unlawful military occupation.
To those reporters who hate Trump seems like this would be a good talking point.
Agreed