## Facts

- Hawaiʻi enacted legislation directing regulation of “thrill craft” (personal watercraft), citing public safety risks from mixing motorized craft with swimmers and other non-motorized users.
- The Department of Transportation adopted administrative rules restricting thrill-craft operations by area and time, including in Kāneʻohe Bay and Maunalua Bay.
- In 1990, the legislature enacted Act 313, which restricted commercial ocean recreation in the two bays:
  - No commercial thrill-craft operations on Saturdays, Sundays, or state/federal holidays.
  - No commercial ocean recreational activity on Sundays.
- Kaneohe Bay Cruises, Inc. and related plaintiffs operated commercial boat tours and water-sports services that derived substantial weekend and holiday revenue, with many customers being tourists.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging Act 313 violated equal protection, constituted race/national-origin discrimination against Japanese tourists and Japanese-oriented businesses, and was preempted by federal maritime/boating law.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for the State and denied reconsideration; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Act 313’s restrictions on commercial thrill-craft and commercial ocean recreation violate equal protection by treating commercial operators differently from noncommercial users.
2. Whether a facially neutral statute regulating commercial ocean recreation was enacted with a discriminatory purpose based on race or national origin.
3. Whether Act 313 is preempted by federal law governing maritime navigation and boating safety under express, field, or conflict preemption.

## Decision

- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the State.
- The court held Act 313 is a facially neutral economic regulation subject to rational basis review, and it is rationally related to legitimate state interests including public safety, congestion control, environmental protection, and recreational allocation.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence that the legislature enacted Act 313 “because of” adverse effects on a racial or national-origin group; disparate impact and isolated comments were insufficient.
- The court held Act 313 is not preempted by federal law because:
  - There was no express preemption applicable to these local use restrictions.
  - Congress had not occupied the field of local recreational water-use regulation where the statute addressed when/where commercial activities may occur rather than vessel design, manning, or navigation rules.
  - There was no conflict with federal requirements because federal law did not mandate that such commercial operations be permitted in the specified waters at specified times.

## Legal Principles

- A facially neutral statute alleged to be racially discriminatory requires proof of discriminatory purpose, not merely disproportionate impact on a group.
- Economic and social-welfare regulations that do not implicate suspect classifications or fundamental rights are reviewed under rational basis and will be upheld if any reasonably conceivable facts support the classification.
- States may impose reasonable, nondiscriminatory local restrictions on the time and place of commercial recreational activities in state waters to protect public safety and welfare.
- Federal maritime/boating statutes do not preempt state time-and-place restrictions on local commercial ocean recreation absent clear congressional intent to occupy the field or a direct conflict with federal law.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Hawaiʻi’s weekend and holiday limits on commercial thrill-craft operations and the Sunday ban on commercial ocean recreation in Kāneʻohe and Maunalua Bays, finding no equal-protection or race-discrimination violation and no federal preemption of these local safety and use regulations.


Kaneohe Bay Cruises, Inc. v. Hirata, 75 Haw. 250, 861 P.2d 1 (Haw. 1993)