Even as the year comes to an end, legal battles on all levels of the justice system will continue into 2026. Aloha State Daily has six cases to keep an eye on through next year.
• Students for Fair Admissions v. Kamehameha Schools — In September, Virginia-based nonprofit Students for Fair Admissions announced its intention to campaign against the student admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools. One month later, the nonprofit filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, accusing the school of race-based discrimination.
The suit represents two anonymous Hawai‘i families who claim to have been discouraged from letting their children apply to attend KS because their children are not Native Hawaiian and, they believe, would not be accepted.
Meanwhile, the school responded by vowing to defend its admissions policy, which they have successfully defended in court before. A 2003 lawsuit, Doe v. Kamehameha Schools, ended in the school’s favor, on the defense that the admissions policy is needed to correct ongoing imbalances facing Native Hawaiians.
Since the suit was filed in October, the case has moved forward by degrees. SFFA has argued that KS is taking advantage of an exception or carveout of the Civil Rights Act that violates the Fifth Amendment’s principle of equal protection.
By invoking a constitutional question, SFFA has drawn the U.S. Attorney General into the case; the Attorney General’s Office has until the end of January to intervene.
KS, meanwhile, will respond to SFFA’s complaint by Jan. 14.
• Yukutake v. Lopez — A battle over gun rights in the state that began in 2019 will continue into 2026 in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The first verdict in the case came from the First District Court in Honolulu in 2021. That verdict found two firearm statutes unconstitutional: one setting an expiration date for permits to purchase handguns, and another that required guns to be inspected in-person at the time of registration.
The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which saw a panel of judges uphold the Hawai‘i court’s decision in March of this year. But the appellate court moved to rehear the case in July anyway, negating the panel’s verdict.
That decision raised eyebrows among gun right advocates, who told ASD in August that the U.S. Court of Appeals has a habit of abusing protocol in order to overturn pro-gun verdicts.
Little and less has happened in the case since August. Oral arguments in the case were initially scheduled to take place Jan. 12, 2026, in California; they have since been rescheduled to March 23.
• Kāpa‘a, et al v. Trump, et al — A group of environmental organizations challenged in May a proclamation by President Donald Trump opening most of the waters of the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument to commercial fishing.
The groups — Kāpa‘a, the Conservation Council for Hawai‘i and the Center for Biological Diversity — sued Trump and other federal officials, arguing that Trump’s pronouncement wasn’t legal.
The suit argued that Trump’s pronouncement incorrectly invoked the Antiquities Act, a law that allows for land to be set aside in order to protect cultural and natural resources. That law, the suit argued, does not authorize the president to undo protections previously established through the Antiquities Act; to do so would require Congressional action.
The groups filed a motion in June requesting that the U.S. District Court declare efforts by the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service to revise regulations for the Marine National Monument unlawful until the suit is resolved.
In August, the District Court granted two claims by the environmental groups; namely, that the NMFS had failed to comply with legally mandated rulemaking processes while carrying out Trump’s proclamation. As for the actual legality of the proclamation itself, a non-jury trial on the subject is a year away, scheduled for Dec. 7, 2026.
• United States of America v. Scott Nago — Hawai‘i is one of 18 states facing lawsuits from the Department of Justice accusing them of violating the 1960 Civil Rights Act by refusing to provide state voter registration data.
In September, the DOJ requested Hawai‘i’s Chief Elections Officer, Scott Nago, send the state’s full voter registration list to the DOJ in order to evaluate whether the state is complying with the terms of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act. Nago refused, telling DOJ that the state has a set process for releasing that sort of data, which includes sworn affidavits affirming that the data will not be sold or released for commercial purposes.
DOJ responded in December by suing Nago, arguing that the Civil Rights Act requires state elections officers to produce election data on request by the U.S. Attorney General.
The case, having been filed on Dec. 11, is still in its infancy, with a motion hearing scheduled for Jan. 22, 2026.
• Hitachi Rail Honolulu v. Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation, et al — HART and a contractor on HART’s Skyline project are duking it out over who is responsible for that project’s chronic delays and cost overruns.
Hitachi Rail, a contractor selected to design and operate much of Skyline’s core systems, sued HART in November, accusing HART of breaching its contract and severely mismanaging the project, causing the contractor $320 in delay-related damages.
This was actually Hitachi’s second suit against HART; the first, filed in 2024, was dismissed earlier this year.
While Hitachi’s suit names specific conflicts that wasted the contractor’s time and resources — such as, for example, a mix-up where other contractors supplied rail infrastructure intended for a larger wheel than the ones Hitachi designed, leading to 13 months of delays — HART filed a counterclaim in December, accusing Hitachi of causing the problems.
In the case of the wrong-sized wheels, HART claimed that Hitachi was responsible for ensuring the wheels interacted properly with the track as designed and failed to do so.
HART also accused Hitachi of inflating its damages by doctoring schedules or counting expenses multiple times.
The case is still young, but it might go the same way as Hitachi’s 2024 case: the First Circuit Court will discuss whether to dismiss the case on Jan. 13, 2026.
• Wolford v. Lopez — A lawsuit over the state’s concealed carry laws will go before the U.S. Supreme Court in January.
In 2023, Hawai‘i — and other states nationwide — changed its gun laws in order to adhere to the results of a Supreme Court verdict that struck down a New York law. That verdict found that states cannot require an applicant for a concealed carry license to show a special need to have a firearm in public.
Included in the new law Hawai‘i adopted was a prohibition on the carry of firearms on private property unless clearly approved by the property owner. This was referred to as the “vampire rule,” referring to folklore stating vampires must be invited in order to enter a home.
Three Maui plaintiffs sued the state the same year, with a circuit court judge ruling in their favor. The state appealed, and the appeals court ruled in 2024 that the laws were constitutional only in part, although a panel of appellate judges upheld the vampire rule.
After the plaintiffs appealed once again, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in October to hear the case, with oral arguments scheduled for Jan. 20, 2026.
For the latest news of Hawai‘i, sign up here for our free Daily Edition newsletter.
