A justice on the Hawaii Supreme Court has delivered a sweeping critique of the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing the conservative majority of weakening constitutional rights and advancing a political agenda. The sharp rebuke came in a majority opinion authored by Justice Todd Eddins in the case of State v. Granillo, which concerned a decades-old criminal conviction.
In his 91-page opinion, Eddins dedicated roughly eight pages to arguing that Hawaii's courts should not defer to the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretations of the federal Constitution. He contended that the Hawaii Constitution provides stronger protections than the federal Constitution as currently interpreted by the nation's highest court, which he accused of abandoning landmark civil rights principles.
Eddins specifically referenced the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which ended racial segregation in public schools, contrasting it with what he called the Roberts Court's reliance on discredited rulings like Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). He argued that the current court's originalist approach mirrors the reasoning of these past decisions, which he stated have been used to control modern life.
"When six justices walk away from those they are supposed to protect, state constitutions hold the line," Eddins wrote, referring to the court's six conservative justices. "That is not defiance. That is the design."
He pointed to several consequential U.S. Supreme Court decisions as evidence of this trend, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (overturning the federal right to abortion), Citizens United v. FEC (campaign finance), Rucho v. Common Cause (partisan gerrymandering), Trump v. United States (presidential immunity), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (Second Amendment protections).
Eddins also criticized the court's perceived "colorblind" approach to the Equal Protection Clause, asserting that it ignores the amendment's original intent to protect formerly enslaved Black Americans. "The Roberts Court sees only white," he wrote. "It refuses to acknowledge who the Equal Protection Clause was written to protect."
He accused the court of systematically dismantling democratic safeguards, eroding constitutional liberties, and trampling human dignity, stating that such actions do not dictate the course for the Hawaiʻi Constitution.
Eddins has served on the Hawaii Supreme Court since 2020, appointed by then-Democratic Governor David Ige.
The opinion drew immediate criticism from legal observers. Eric Wessan, Iowa's Solicitor General, called the opinion an "unhinged attack on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court" on X, formerly Twitter. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley described the opinion as "devoid of judicial restraint and decorum," also stating on X that it unleashed "a torrent of rage and recrimination against the majority of the United States Supreme Court, including suggesting that they are de facto racists."
The Hawaii Supreme Court recently experienced its own loss at the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Wolford v. Lopez. In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Hawaii's requirement that gun owners obtain property owner permission before carrying firearms into certain private businesses open to the public.