Hawaii Supreme Court justice accuses Roberts Court of harming democracy

Key Points:

• Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins used the ruling in State v. Granillo to sharply criticize the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts, accusing it of weakening constitutional rights and undermining democracy.
• The majority opinion overturned a 1990 criminal conviction due to discredited forensic evidence, but included an eight-page critique arguing Hawaii's constitution offers stronger protections than the federal constitution as currently interpreted by the Roberts Court.
• Eddins accused the U.S. Supreme Court of abandoning landmark civil rights precedents like Brown v. Board of Education and adopting an originalist approach comparable to discredited rulings such as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson.
• The opinion cited recent major Supreme Court decisions—including Dobbs, Citizens United, and Bruen—as evidence of the Court's expansion of government and wealthy interests' power at the expense of individual rights and democratic safeguards.
• Legal experts condemned the Hawaii opinion as unusually harsh and lacking judicial restraint, noting it is rare for a state supreme court to so openly attack the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court.