{"id":8206,"date":"2026-09-02T05:52:15","date_gmt":"2026-09-02T15:52:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/?p=8206"},"modified":"2026-09-02T05:52:15","modified_gmt":"2026-09-02T15:52:15","slug":"as-an-occupied-state-hawaii-was-never-a-part-of-the-united-states-hawaiian-council-of-regency-and-67-scholars-and-academics-from-11-countries-file-amici-brief-with-u-s-district-cour","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/as-an-occupied-state-hawaii-was-never-a-part-of-the-united-states-hawaiian-council-of-regency-and-67-scholars-and-academics-from-11-countries-file-amici-brief-with-u-s-district-cour\/","title":{"rendered":"AS AN OCCUPIED STATE, HAWAI\u2018I WAS NEVER A PART OF THE UNITED STATES\u2014Hawaiian Council of Regency and 67 Scholars and Academics from 11 Countries file Amici Brief with U.S. District Court in Hawai\u2018i in Support of the Kamehameha Schools"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Students for Fair Admissions<\/a><\/strong> filed a federal lawsuit in October 2025 challenging the long-standing admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools in Hawai\u02bbi that grants enrollment preference to pure and part aboriginal Hawaiian students. The Kamehameha Schools is a private estate established by the probate court of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1885 under the last will and testament of High Chiefess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The admission policy was the intent of High Chiefess Mrs. Bishop that began in 1887.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Hawaiian Kingdom Council of Regency, the restored government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, along with 66 scholars and academics from 11 countries, have filed an amici<\/em> brief in support of the defendant Kamehameha Schools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amicus curiae<\/em> is Latin for friend of the court. If there is more than one person, the filing is called an amici curiae<\/em> or friends of the court. In the American court system, an amici curiae<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Minister Dr. David Keanu Sai and Professor Federico Lenzerini authored the amici<\/em> brief. Minister Dr. Sai<\/a><\/strong> is Chairman of the Council of Regency and is a Senior Lecturer in Political Science and Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai\u2018i Windward Community College and an affiliate faculty at the University of Hawai\u2018i at M\u0101noa College of Education graduate program. Dr. Sai is also a recognized scholar with his recent publication by Oxford University Press \u201cHawai\u2018i\u2019s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire<\/a><\/strong>.\u201d Professor Lenzerini<\/a><\/strong> is a full Professor of International Law, Human Rights and International Organization, at the University of Siena, Italy, Department of Political and International Sciences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An additional 66 amici<\/em> with doctoral degrees joined in on the brief. Under the heading of \u201cInterests of Amici Curiae<\/em>,\u201d it states,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Amici curiae<\/em>, Minister Dr. David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., and Professor Federico Lenzerini, Ph.D., international scholars whose views are represented in this brief, along with attesting amici curiae<\/em> Professors Prabhakar Singh, Ph.D., and Alfred de Zayas, Ph.D., have expertise in public international law, international human rights, international humanitarian law, and international norms regarding statehood and sovereignty, self-determination and the rule of law. The remaining amici<\/em> have joined solely representing themselves as doctoral degree recipients that understand the highest level of academic and legal research, and attest the amici<\/em> brief to be factual and true.  Amici<\/em> are from eleven countries\u2014France, Germany, Hawaiian Kingdom, India, Italy, Japan, Palestine, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Switzerland, and the United States. All amici<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The amici<\/em> states that U.S. federal courts (Article III courts<\/a><\/strong>) lack jurisdiction in Hawaiian territory under international law, unless acting as Article II occupation courts<\/a><\/strong> during military occupation. International law, including treaties and customary law must be enforced by U.S. courts established in foreign territory that is under an American occupation. The Hawaiian Kingdom is an occupied State.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article III courts are referred to as the third branch of government in the U.S. Constitution. Article II occupation courts are referred to the second branch of government called the executive branch that stems from the President\u2019s authority over U.S. forces in occupied territories. Article I courts are referred to as the first branch of government, which are courts established by the Congress such as bankruptcy courts<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The amici<\/em> state that the Hawaiian Kingdom was recognized as an independent State in the nineteenth century by the U.S. and other nations. The 1893 overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by U.S. forces is described as illegal and an act of war, with no valid treaty of cession transferring sovereignty to the U.S. Consequently, U.S. congressional acts, such as the \u201c<\/strong>annexation resolution\u201d<\/strong> in 1898, Hawai\u2018i territorial status in 1900, and Hawai\u2018i statehood in 1959, have no legal effect outside U.S. territory and do not lawfully transfer U.S. sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands. Amici<\/em> states that international law presumes the continued existence of an independent State even if its government is militarily overthrown or absent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The amici<\/em> explain that what was overthrown, albeit illegally, was the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and not the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State. This is why when the Iraqi government was militarily overthrown by U.S. forces in April of 2003, the Iraqi State and its sovereignty continued to exist during the Second Gulf War, widely known as the Iraq War. During the American occupation, Iraqi sovereignty and laws, not American sovereignty and laws, continued to be enforced by the American led Coalition Provisional Authority<\/a><\/strong> (CPA). The status of the CPA was a provisional government under U.S. military occupation. According to paragraph 353 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based upon the possession of enemy territory, necessarily implies that the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the occupying power. Occupation is essentially provisional. On the other hand, subjugation or conquest implies transfer of sovereignty, which generally takes the form of annexation and is normally affected by a treaty of peace.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The amici<\/em> state, in the case of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893, that U.S. forces did not administer Hawaiian Kingdom law but rather allowed the provisional government to pretend to be a government who created draconian laws. President Cleveland branded the provisional government as a puppet of the United States. On December 18, 1893, the President stated to the Congress that the \u201cprovisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Five years later, the United States Congress passed a joint resolution purporting to have unilaterally annexed the Hawaiian Islands during the Spanish-American War. Since 1898, the United States began to unlawfully impose American laws over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom in violation of international law, Hawaiian Kingdom law,<\/strong> the law of occupation, and U.S. law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The amici<\/em> also draw attention to a legal opinion<\/a><\/strong> by the Department of Justice\u2019s Office of Legal Counsel in 1988, that concluded Congress did not have the authority to annex the Hawaiian Islands, being a foreign country, by enacting a joint resolution. The legal opinion also stated that only \u201cby means of treaties can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force\u2014confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it is enacted.\u201d There has never been any treaty of cession of the Hawaiian Kingdom\u2019s sovereignty and territory to the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The amici<\/em> states that in 1997, a Council of Regency was established under the Hawaiian Constitution to serve as the acting government in the absence of a monarch. Amici<\/em> further affirm that the Council of Regency has legitimate authority to represent the Hawaiian Kingdom domestically and internationally. And that according to international law, under the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, the Hawaiian Kingdom currently has treaties<\/a><\/strong> with 92 Member States of the United Nations, of which 12 treaties are with the original States, and 80 treaties are with their successor States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The amici<\/em> also draw attention to an international arbitration case that came before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, from 1999-2001. Before the arbitration proceedings began, the Permanent Court recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State for the purposes of the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom<\/a><\/em><\/strong> case (1999-2001), and the U.S. entered into an executive agreement (the 2000 Sai-Clinton agreement) regarding access to case records. Under international law and U.S. law, an executive agreement is a treaty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Permanent Court\u2019s recognition and the lack of objection from 129 Member States of the Permanent Court, to include the United States, was presented as evidence of these States\u2019 recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom\u2019s continued legal existence and the Council of Regency as its government. Together with the Hawaiian Kingdom treaty partners and their successor States, 185 of these States are also Members of the United Nations that recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom\u2019s continued existence by treaties and customary international law. The current membership of the United Nations is 193 States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The amici<\/em> bring to the attention of the Court the Lorenzo principle<\/em> that has been in effect since 2002. In the Federal courts in Hawai\u2018i, the Lorenzo principle<\/em> sets an evidentiary standard for those claiming the federal court lack\u2019s jurisdiction because of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Lorenzo principle<\/em> stems from a 1994 State of Hawai\u2018i Appellate decision in State of Hawai\u2018i v. Lorenzo<\/em> that set that evidentiary burden.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2014, the Supreme Court, in State of Hawai\u2018i v. Armitage<\/em>, clarified the evidentiary burden that Lorenzo<\/em> placed upon defendants. The Supreme Court stated, \u201cLorenzo held that, for jurisdictional purposes, should a defendant demonstrate a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai\u2018i \u2018exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state\u2019s sovereign nature,\u2019 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\u2018i lack jurisdiction over him or her.\u201d The amici<\/em> state that they have met the evidentiary burden, under the Lorenzo principle<\/em>, proving the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amici<\/em> state that the imposition of U.S. laws and administrative policies in Hawai\u2018i is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation under international law. Denial of a fair and regular trial to protected persons, like Kamehameha Schools, in occupied territory is also described by the amici<\/em> as a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, which is also a war crime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The amici<\/em> urge the Court to recognize U.S. obligations under international law and to transform itself into an Article II occupation court, rather than remaining as an Article III court, when sitting in the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Amici<\/em> further state that for the Court not to comply with international law, war crimes would be committed. In its closing, the amici<\/em> state:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

For the foregoing reasons, amici<\/em> request that the Court consider U.S. obligations under international law when sitting in the territory of an occupied State, in evaluating the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 1893. The amici<\/em> urge the Court to also evaluate the amici curiae<\/em> brief filed by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Water Protector Legal Collective, which is enclosed herein as Exhibit 2, so as to enhance its own understanding of why the Court must transform itself from an Article III court to an Article II occupation court.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The filed amici curiae<\/em> brief is available\u00a0online<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONTACT:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Students for Fair Admissions filed a federal lawsuit in October 2025 challenging the long-standing admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools in Hawai\u02bbi that grants enrollment preference to pure and part aboriginal Hawaiian students. The Kamehameha Schools is a private estate established … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"0","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,8,3,6,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8206","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-education","category-international-law","category-international-relations","category-treaties","category-war-crimes"],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p31YBQ-28m","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8206","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8206"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8206\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8211,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8206\/revisions\/8211"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}