Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins has sharply criticized the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority, asserting in a recent ruling that state constitutions, like Hawaii's, serve as a crucial bulwark against what he views as the erosion of constitutional rights and democratic institutions by the nation's highest court.
In a 91-page majority opinion in the case of State v. Granillo, Eddins dedicated approximately eight pages to articulating his critique of the U.S. Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts. The case itself involved the conviction of a man in 1990 for kidnapping and sexual assault, with the court ordering a new trial due to the discrediting of forensic science used in the original prosecution. However, Eddins used the ruling to argue that Hawaii's courts should not defer to the Roberts Court when interpreting the state constitution.
"When six justices walk away from those they are supposed to protect, state constitutions hold the line," Eddins wrote. "That is not defiance. That is the design."
Eddins contended that the Hawaii Constitution offers more robust protections than the federal Constitution as currently interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. He specifically pointed to decisions such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned the federal right to abortion, Citizens United v. FEC on campaign finance, Rucho v. Common Cause concerning partisan gerrymandering, Trump v. United States on presidential immunity, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which expanded Second Amendment protections.
The justice drew parallels between the current U.S. Supreme Court's approach and historical decisions he believes undermined civil rights. He referenced Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which ended school segregation, and contrasted it with Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), decisions that denied citizenship to Black Americans and upheld racial segregation, respectively. Eddins argued that the current court's originalist interpretation echoes the discredited legal reasoning of Dred Scott and Plessy.
"Today’s hubristic originalists use the same method to control modern life," Eddins wrote. "The Court overrides what Congress passed. It overrides what the people chose. All to serve its own ends. What this Court has done to constitutional rights, democratic institutions, and the rule of law explains why Hawaiʻi’s Constitution takes no instruction from it."
Eddins also accused the Roberts Court of employing a "colorblind" interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause that, in his view, disregards its original intent to protect formerly enslaved Black Americans. "The Roberts Court sees only white," he stated. "It refuses to acknowledge who the Equal Protection Clause was written to protect."
His critique suggested that recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have increasingly favored government officials and wealthy interests at the expense of individual rights. "A court that systematically dismantles democratic safeguards, steamrolls constitutional liberties, and tramples human dignity does not chart the course for the Hawaiʻi Constitution," he wrote.
The opinion has drawn criticism from some legal observers. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley described the opinion as "devoid of judicial restraint and decorum," and Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan called it an "unhinged attack on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court."
Mentioned in the ruling was the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Wolford v. Lopez, which struck down Hawaii's "vampire rule," a state law that required gun owners to obtain property owner permission before carrying firearms onto private property open to the public. Eddins has served on the Hawaii Supreme Court since 2020, appointed by former Democratic Governor David Ige.