The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued a ruling on June 17, 2026, in the case of Keahi v. Chang, which centers on the application of the Sunshine Law. This law mandates that public agencies conduct their business in an open manner, allowing for public participation and transparency. The case involved plaintiffs Kekai Keahi and Jennifer Kamaho#i Mather, who challenged the actions of Dawn Chang, chairperson of the Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM), regarding the redeployment of a deputy. The court's decision has implications for how public agencies handle personnel matters and their obligations under the Sunshine Law.
The plaintiffs, Keahi and Mather, filed their complaint against Chang and CWRM after the deputy, M. Kaleo Manuel, was redeployed without a public meeting or notice. They argued that this action violated the Sunshine Law, as it did not allow for public input or transparency in the decision-making process. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit dismissed their complaint, stating that it was moot because Manuel had returned to his position as First Deputy by October 2023. The plaintiffs appealed this decision, seeking a determination on the applicability of the Sunshine Law to the circumstances surrounding Manuel's redeployment.
The dispute arose from a public statement made by Chang on August 16, 2023, announcing Manuel's redeployment. The plaintiffs contended that the CWRM did not hold any public meetings regarding this personnel action, which they argued was required under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 92-7. They sought a court order to void Manuel's redeployment, declare the actions of the CWRM invalid, and obtain injunctive relief to prevent further violations of the Sunshine Law.
The case reached the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals after the Circuit Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint as moot. The plaintiffs challenged this dismissal, arguing that even though Manuel had returned to his position, there were still substantive issues regarding the interpretation of the Sunshine Law that needed to be addressed. They pointed to a previous ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court in Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest, Inc. v. City & County of Honolulu, which allowed for declaratory relief even after a specific action had been resolved.
The court ruled that the Circuit Court was correct in dismissing Count I of the complaint, which sought to void Manuel's redeployment. Since he had already returned to his position, there was no longer a live controversy regarding that specific action. However, the court found that the Circuit Court erred in dismissing Counts II and III, which sought declaratory relief regarding the Sunshine Law and the legality of the CWRM's actions. The court stated, "There is still a live controversy over the correct interpretation of the Sunshine Law in the alleged circumstances, and declaratory relief, if warranted, would present future harm to the public interest."
The judges presiding over the case were Katherine G. Leonard, Keith K. Hiraoka, and Clyde J. Wadsworth. The ruling emphasized the importance of public participation in government actions and the need for transparency in decision-making processes. The court's decision to vacate the dismissal of Counts II and III means that the plaintiffs can pursue their claims regarding the Sunshine Law and the alleged illegal rulemaking by the CWRM.
This ruling has significant implications for public agencies in Hawaii, as it reinforces the requirement for open meetings and public input in personnel matters. It highlights the importance of the Sunshine Law in ensuring that government actions are conducted transparently and that the public has the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. The court's decision may encourage other individuals or groups to challenge similar actions by public agencies that they believe violate the Sunshine Law.
Moving forward, the case will return to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with the Intermediate Court of Appeals' ruling. The plaintiffs will have the opportunity to argue their claims regarding the Sunshine Law and seek a determination on the legality of the CWRM's actions. The court's decision leaves open the possibility for future legal challenges related to public agency transparency and compliance with the Sunshine Law.
As of now, it is unclear whether the defendants will appeal the ruling or if there are any related cases pending. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how public agencies in Hawaii handle personnel matters and comply with the Sunshine Law in the future.