## Facts

- Hawaiʻi County voters adopted a voter-initiative ordinance, the “Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis” (LLEP), codified in the Hawaiʻi County Code.
- The LLEP declared that, for adults, personal-use cannabis cultivation, possession, and use should be the County’s lowest law-enforcement priority.
- The LLEP directed county law-enforcement and prosecutorial priorities regarding “investigation, arrest, prosecution, and incarceration” for adult personal-use cannabis offenses.
- The LLEP restricted the expenditure of county funds and resources for investigating and prosecuting adult personal-use cannabis offenses and imposed reporting requirements relating to cannabis enforcement.
- County residents sued county officials, alleging noncompliance with the LLEP and seeking relief compelling officials to follow the ordinance and effectively limit enforcement of state cannabis crimes.
- The circuit court dismissed the complaint on the pleadings, concluding the LLEP was preempted by state law; the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court accepted review to decide whether the LLEP was preempted in whole or in part.

## Issues

1. Whether the LLEP conflicts with Hawaiʻi state statutes that criminalize marijuana and is therefore preempted.
2. If some provisions conflict, whether nonconflicting provisions can be severed so that part of the LLEP remains valid.

## Decision

- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
- The Court held the LLEP conflicts with state criminal law governing marijuana and is preempted.
- The Court held the conflict was not severable and invalidated the LLEP in its entirety.
- A dissent would have treated parts of the LLEP as permissible local priority-setting or policy guidance and not wholly preempted.

## Legal Principles

- A county ordinance is preempted when it conflicts with state law, including where it permits what state law forbids, forbids what state law permits, or otherwise obstructs state law and policy.
- State criminal statutes establishing a comprehensive, uniform scheme may preclude county measures that direct or constrain enforcement of those state crimes.
- A local law that mandates enforcement priorities and restricts local resource use in a way that interferes with enforcement of state criminal law conflicts with state policy and is preempted.
- Severability is unavailable where the ordinance’s provisions are interdependent and aimed at a single purpose that is itself unlawful; courts may invalidate the enactment as a whole when partial survival would not reflect what the voters adopted.

## Conclusion

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court concluded that the LLEP’s mandatory prioritization and resource constraints impeded enforcement of statewide marijuana prohibitions, creating a conflict with state criminal law; because the ordinance operated as an integrated scheme, it was preempted and void in full, leaving plaintiffs without relief.


Ruggles v. Yagong, 353 P.3d 953 (Haw. 2015)