This was chaotic.
A Hawaii Supreme Court justice has ignited a political firestorm after using a criminal case to launch a sweeping attack on President Donald Trump’s conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. The unusually sharp opinion accused Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s conservative justices of weakening constitutional protections, drawing swift criticism from legal scholars across the country.
The dispute centers on State v. Granillo, a case involving a man convicted in 1990 of kidnapping and assaulting a woman on Maui. On Wednesday, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that he should receive a new trial after determining that hair and fiber testimony from an FBI forensic expert was based on scientific techniques that have since been widely discredited.
While the ruling focused on forensic evidence, Justice Todd Eddins devoted roughly eight pages of his 91-page opinion to criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Hawaii’s courts should rely on the state’s constitution rather than recent federal constitutional rulings.
Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Blasts Trump’s Conservative Majority
Eddins argued that state constitutions play a critical role when state courts believe the U.S. Supreme Court has failed to adequately protect individual rights.
Eddins argued that when a majority of Supreme Court justices fail to uphold the rights they are meant to safeguard, state constitutions are intended to provide an additional layer of protection. He said that system is part of the constitutional framework rather than an act of resistance.
According to Eddins, Hawaii’s Constitution provides broader protections than the federal Constitution as interpreted by the Roberts Court. He argued that the current Supreme Court has moved away from constitutional principles established during the civil rights era.
Justice Compares Today’s Supreme Court to Historic Rulings
One of the opinion’s most controversial sections compared the Roberts Court’s constitutional philosophy to two of the most criticized Supreme Court decisions in American history.
Eddins wrote that the current court “does not honor the work of 1954” but instead “revives the work of 1857” and “the work of 1896.”
Those references pointed to Brown v. Board of Education, which ended racial segregation in public schools, as well as Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to Black Americans, and Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld racial segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine.
According to Eddins, the court’s originalist framework applies the same constitutional interpretation method that guided those earlier rulings.
“Today’s hubristic originalists use the same method to control modern life,” he wrote.
Hawaii Justice Criticizes Major Supreme Court Decisions
Throughout the opinion, Eddins challenged several landmark decisions issued by the Roberts Court, arguing they weakened constitutional rights and democratic institutions.
Among the rulings he criticized were:
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
- Citizens United v. FEC
- Rucho v. Common Cause
- Trump v. United States
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
Eddins also argued that the court’s interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause overlooks the amendment’s original purpose.
“The Roberts Court sees only white,” he wrote. “It refuses to acknowledge who the Equal Protection Clause was written to protect.”
He concluded that Hawaii’s Constitution should not look to the Roberts Court for guidance, arguing that recent Supreme Court decisions have expanded government power and weakened constitutional safeguards.
Why This Case Matters
State supreme courts are permitted to interpret their own state constitutions independently, provided those rulings do not conflict with federal law. That authority has become increasingly important as state courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have reached different conclusions on major constitutional issues.
The opinion highlights the growing divide between liberal-leaning state courts and the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. As more constitutional disputes work their way through the courts, similar clashes are expected to continue.
Legal Experts Condemn Hawaii Justice’s Remarks
The opinion quickly spread through legal circles, with several constitutional scholars arguing that it crossed the line from judicial analysis into political commentary.
Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan criticized the opinion on social media, calling it “an unhinged attack on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”
“I haven’t ever seen something like this,” Wessan wrote. “And it’s not good.”
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley also criticized the ruling, describing it as lacking judicial restraint.
Turley said the opinion unleashed “a torrent of rage and recrimination” against the majority of the United States Supreme Court, arguing that its language was highly unusual for a state supreme court decision.
Opinion Follows Major Supreme Court Victory for Gun Rights
The ruling comes only weeks after Hawaii suffered a significant defeat before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Hawaii could not require lawful gun owners to obtain permission from private property owners before carrying firearms into businesses and other locations open to the public. Critics had labeled the regulation the state’s “vampire rule.”
Justice Eddins has served on the Hawaii Supreme Court since 2020 after being appointed by former Democratic Gov. David Ige.
Whether supporters view the opinion as a strong defense of Hawaii’s constitutional independence or critics see it as an unusually political judicial statement, the decision has already become one of the year’s most closely watched clashes between a state supreme court and President Trump’s conservative U.S. Supreme Court.