Hawaii Supreme Court justice accuses Roberts Court of harming democracy

The Hawaii Supreme Court judge used a decision overturning a decades-old criminal conviction to deliver a sharp rebuke of the Supreme Court to Chief Justice John Roberts, accusing the nation’s highest court of undermining constitutional rights, undermining democracy and advancing a political agenda.

Judge Todd Eddins wrote: 91-page majority opinionWednesday in State v. Granillo, a case involving a man convicted of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman on Maui in 1990. The court ordered a new trial after concluding that hair and fiber evidence presented by an FBI expert was based on forensic science that has since been discredited.

But about eight pages into the opinion, Eddins argued that Hawaii courts should not look to the Roberts Court when interpreting the state constitution and used the case to deliver an unusually sharp critique of the nation’s highest court.

LAWYER WHO DEFEAT HAWAII GUN LAW CALLS STATE’S RELIANCE ON CODE BLACK ‘SHAMEFUL’

“When six justices stray from the people they are supposed to protect, state constitutions hold the line,” Eddins wrote, referring to the court’s six conservative justices. “This is not a challenge. This is the design.”

Eddins argued that Hawaii’s Constitution provides stronger protections than the federal Constitution currently interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and said the Court had abandoned landmark civil rights principles.

“The Court that currently defines the federal legal process does not honor the work of 1954,” Eddins wrote. “It revives the work of 1857. The work of 1896.”

Eddins was referring to Brown v. Board of Education, which was decided in 1954 and ended racial segregation in public schools, as well as the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision in 1857 that denied civil rights to Black Americans, and the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that upheld racial segregation.

Eddins notes that the Roberts Court now has Brown v. He argued that it did not reflect the constitutional principles established in the Board of Education case, but rather that the Court’s original approach was based on the same type of constitutional interpretation in the discredited Dred Scott and Plessy decisions.

“Today’s arrogant originalists use the same method to control modern life,” Eddins wrote.

U.S. Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts, from left, U.S. Supreme Court associate justice Elena Kagan, U.S. Supreme Court associate justice Brett Kavanaugh and U.S. Supreme Court associate justice Amy Coney Barrett during the State of the Union address in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, February 24, 2026 in Washington, DC, United States. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

THE SUPREME COURT RAISE LIMITS ON PARTY CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES IN COORDINATION WITH CANDIDATES

“The Court is invalidating the decision that Congress passed,” Eddins continued. “It overrides the people’s choices. They all serve their own purposes. What this Court has done to protect constitutional rights, democratic institutions, and the rule of law explains why the Hawaii Constitution takes no direction from it.”

Throughout the opinion, Eddins cited many of the Roberts Court’s most important decisions, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion, as evidence that constitutional protections had been weakened; Citizens United v. FEC on campaign finance; Rucho v. Common Cause on partisan gerrymandering; Trump v. United States on presidential immunity; and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which expanded Second Amendment protections.

Eddins accused the Roberts Court of taking a “colorblind” approach to the Equal Protection Clause; This approach, in his view, ignored the amendment’s original purpose, which was to protect formerly enslaved Black Americans.

“Roberts Court sees only whites,” he wrote. “He refuses to acknowledge who the Equal Protection Clause was written to protect.”

He also argued that recent Supreme Court decisions have steadily expanded the powers of government officials and wealthy interests while diminishing protections for individual rights.

“A court that systematically dismantles democratic guarantees, tramples constitutional liberties, and tramples human dignity cannot chart the course of the Hawaii Constitution,” he wrote.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts attends the inauguration ceremonies in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo (Reuters)

THOMAS Leaves Nothing Unsaid on Racist Gerrymandering Decision: ‘Go Further’

That opinion was quickly criticized by legal observers, who said it was highly unusual for a state supreme court opinion to devote so much space to criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The court is engaged in an unrelenting attack on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court,” said Iowa Attorney General Eric Wessan. wrote About X. “I’ve never seen anything like it. And it’s not good.”

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley similarly described the opinion as “lacking judicial restraint and propriety.”

“The Hawaii Supreme Court issued a truly shocking opinion that unleashed a torrent of outrage and accusation against the majority of the United States Supreme Court, including suggesting that they were de facto racists,” Turley said. he said. He wrote to X.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

The opinion comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court handed Hawaii a huge loss in Wolford v. Lopez, invalidating the state’s so-called “vampire rule.” In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that Hawaii cannot require gun owners to obtain permission from the property owner before carrying firearms onto businesses and other private property open to the public.

Eddins has served on the Hawaii Supreme Court since 2020 after being appointed by then-Democratic Gov. David Ige.