Liberal circuit judge blasts SCOTUS conservatives, says Hawaii will defy high court
A. Hawaii Supreme Court The justice used a ruling overturning a decades-old criminal conviction to deliver a sharp rebuke of Chief Justice John Roberts’ Supreme Court, accusing the nation’s highest court of undermining constitutional rights, undermining democracy and advancing a political agenda.
Judge Todd Eddins wrote: 91-page majority opinion Wednesday 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 Defeated Hawaii Gun Law Calls State’s Reliance on Black Law ‘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: Hawaii Constitution It provides stronger protections than the federal Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and has abandoned the court’s landmark civil rights principles, he said.
A Hawaii Supreme Court Judge has issued a scathing review of the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest decisions, arguing that the high court has weakened constitutional protections for citizens.
“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 citing the Brown v. Board of Education decision, decided in 1954, which ended racial segregation in public schools, the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision in 1857, which denied civil rights to Black Americans, and the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which upheld racial segregation.
Eddins notes that the Roberts court now holds Brown v. He argued that it did not reflect the constitutional principles established in the Board of Education case. Instead, he argued, the court’s original approach relied 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.
(L-R) John Roberts, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and corresponding justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett during the State of the Union address in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC, on February 24, 2026.
Supreme Court Lowers Limit 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 pointed to many of the Roberts court’s most important decisions as evidence of weakening constitutional protections, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion; Citizens United v. FEC on campaign finance; Rucho / Common Cause about 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 repeatedly expanded, but not diminished, the powers of government officials and wealthy interest groups. Protection of individual rights.
“Systematically destroying democratic guarantees, crushing constitutional freedoms and It tramples on human dignity “It does not set the tone for 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.
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 he 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 Here to Download Fox News App
This opinion comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Hawaii. Big loss for Wolford v. Lopez repealed the state’s so-called “vampire rule.” In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that Hawaii cannot require gun owners to get permission from the property owner before carrying guns into public businesses and other private property.
Eddins has served on the Hawaii Supreme Court since 2020 after being appointed by former Democratic Gov. David Ige.
Original article source: Liberal circuit judge criticizes SCOTUS conservatives, says Hawaii will challenge high court
