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.