## Facts

- Native Hawaiian plaintiffs alleged they were beneficiaries of the public-land trust created by § 5(f) of the Hawaiʻi Admission Act.
- Section 5(f) requires the State to hold certain lands and income in trust for five enumerated purposes, including “the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians.”
- The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), through its trustees, administered a portion of trust revenues.
- Plaintiffs alleged OHA trustees misused § 5(f) income by:
  - Using trust funds to support and lobby for federal legislation to create a Native Hawaiian governing entity that used a broader beneficiary definition than the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA) blood-quantum standard.
  - Funding social-service programs open to participants who were not “Native Hawaiians” under the HHCA one-half blood-quantum definition.
- Plaintiffs sued the trustees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the trustees in their official capacities and damages against the trustees in their individual capacities.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding § 5(f) obligations were not enforceable through § 1983.

## Issues

1. Whether § 5(f) of the Hawaiʻi Admission Act creates federal rights for Native Hawaiian trust beneficiaries enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether allegations that trust funds were used for lobbying and programs not limited to HHCA-defined Native Hawaiians plausibly alleged a violation of § 5(f)’s trust purposes.
3. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars the requested relief, and whether prospective relief against state officials is available under Ex parte Young.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal to the extent it rested on the categorical view that § 5(f) cannot be enforced via § 1983.
- The court held circuit precedent recognizes enforceable federal rights for § 5(f) trust beneficiaries and permits § 1983 suits to prevent deviation from the trust purposes.
- The court concluded claims seeking prospective declaratory and injunctive relief for ongoing or future noncompliance could proceed against the trustees in their official capacities under Ex parte Young.
- The court held the Eleventh Amendment bars damages against the trustees in their official capacities.
- The court remanded for further proceedings, including application of immunity and other defenses to any individual-capacity damages theories.

## Legal Principles

- A federal statute’s trust obligations may create individual rights enforceable under § 1983 when the statute imposes sufficiently definite, mandatory duties and identifies beneficiaries.
- Native Hawaiians, as beneficiaries of the § 5(f) public-land trust, may use § 1983 to seek judicial enforcement that the State’s administration does not depart from the trust’s enumerated purposes.
- Section 5(f) does not, by its terms, incorporate the HHCA blood-quantum definition as a strict limitation on all expenditures made for the “betterment” purpose.
- Administration of a multi-purpose public trust permits discretion to fund programs that reasonably further the enumerated purposes; a plaintiff must plausibly allege that expenditures ignore, subvert, or are inconsistent with those purposes.
- The Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity damages claims against state officials, but Ex parte Young permits suits for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief to halt ongoing violations of federal law.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit allowed § 1983 enforcement of § 5(f) trust obligations by Native Hawaiian beneficiaries and permitted prospective official-capacity relief to proceed, while limiting remedies under sovereign immunity and rejecting a categorical rule that § 5(f) spending must be restricted to HHCA blood-quantum beneficiaries.


Day v. Apoliona, 496 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2007)