ARTICLE VI

     All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

     This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges of every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

     The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Attorney General Opinions

  Article 8, titled "Nuclear Energy", of chapter 14 of Hawaii County Code and proposed amendment to the article, that would prohibit the transportation into or storage of any radioactive material that could be used, e.g., in an irradiation facility, were preempted by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.  Att. Gen. Op. 99-1.

  Allocating royalties from geothermal developments on department of Hawaiian home lands (DHHL) lands to the board of land and natural resources or the counties violated §4 of the Admission Act and article XII, §§1 and 3 of the Hawaii constitution.  It is clear from the Admission Act and the Hawaii constitution that the State has an obligation to manage such resources on Hawaiian home lands for the benefit of native Hawaiians pursuant to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA).  Allocation of royalties from geothermal developments on DHHL lands to entities other than DHHL would be violations of both the Admission Act and the Hawaii constitution because those proceeds would not be available to DHHL to carry out the terms and conditions of the HHCA.  Att. Gen. Op. 14-1.

Law Journals and Reviews

  Hawaiian Self-Determination:  A Need for Debate.  III HBJ No. 13, at pg. 121.

  Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. City & County of Honolulu:  Demonstrating the Need to Abandon the Field Preemption Doctrine.  29 UH L. Rev. 501.

  Up In The Air:  The Status & Future of Drone Regulation in Hawai`i.  40 UH L. Rev. 307 (2017).

  Half-Baked:  Remedying the Confusion Between State Medical Cannabis Protections and Federal Laws on Drug Testing for Federal Contractors.  43 UH L. Rev. 231 (2020).

Case Notes

Supremacy.

  No implied preemption of state mooring and anchoring regulations where congressional intent to preempt state action is not clearly manifest, federal regulation has not occupied the field of navigation, and the federal interest in navigation is not so dominant as to assume federal preemption of state laws.  42 F.3d 1185.

  No preemption of state mooring and anchoring regulations by Submerged Lands Act where there was no actual conflict between federal Act and Hawaii's regulations.  42 F.3d 1185.

  Act 243 [L 1995] preempted by Newspaper Preservation Act, because Act 243 intruded upon a field preempted by Congress; plaintiffs' preemption claim was ripe.  103 F.3d 742.

  State regulation that prohibited commercial tour boat operators from operating their tour boats in Hanalei Bay, in conjunction with relevant federal shipping laws, violated the supremacy clause.  340 F.3d 1053.

  Device implanted in plaintiff's leg had no requirements imposed upon it by Medical Device Amendments to Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or Food and Drug Administration which would preempt state tort claims.  841 F. Supp. 327.

  Where plaintiffs filed motion for preliminary injunction regarding Act 359 of 1993 Hawaii legislature (relating to Hawaiian sovereignty), as amended in 1994 and 1996, no supremacy clause violation found regarding native Hawaiian vote.  941 F. Supp. 1529.

  Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment where defendant argued that it was entitled to summary judgment on some of plaintiff's claims because they were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.  For preemption to apply, the facts would have to undisputably demonstrate that defendant could not manufacture a feed that satisfied plaintiff's minimum taurine requirement without taurine supplementation.  971 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (2013).

  Complaint did not allege conduct which would constitute state tort exception to area of labor relations otherwise preempted by federal law.  65 H. 189, 649 P.2d 1119; 73 H. 276, 831 P.2d 1335.

  Implied warranty claim not preempted by Medical Device Amendments to Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.  74 H. 1, 837 P.2d 1273.

  Federal Aviation Act did not preempt state's power, under §239-6, to tax gross receipts attributable to the ground transportation portion of air packages that common carrier transported interisland and/or between Hawaii and the mainland.  88 H. 336, 966 P.2d 648.

  Public utilities commission correctly determined that it could not assume jurisdiction over federal military camp and dismissed complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as this Article preempted any state regulation over the military camp; it was not shown that camp was not an instrumentality of the United States and therefore not entitled to invoke immunity or that the camp was an instrumentality of the United States, but there was a clear and unambiguous congressional authorization waiving camp's immunity from direct state regulation.  112 H. 150, 145 P.3d 693.

  Plaintiffs' state law claims, alleging violation of chapter 480 and common law fraud, to the extent they were premised on Truth in Lending Act (TILA) or Regulation Z violations, including defendant's alleged failure to properly disclose certain terms in its documents as required by TILA, were preempted; the remaining state law claims were not preempted.  647 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (2008).

  The preemption provision of the federal National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 did not preempt state law tort claim; no conflict preemption between state tort law claim and federal department of transportation standard.  696 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (2010).

  Parts of plaintiff's unfair and deceptive trade practices claim were not preempted by federal law where complaint alleged that defendant had a general duty applicable to a contract, and not a duty created by a federal statute or regulation.  707 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (2010).

  State law claims that involved a union's duty to fairly represent plaintiff were likely preempted by federal law.  722 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (2010).

  County ordinance banning genetically engineered organisms was expressly preempted by 42 U.S.C. §7756(b) of the Plant Protection Act, to the extent the ban conflicted with the regulation in 7 C.F.R. §340.0.  111 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (2015).

  Because plaintiff asserted in the complaint that the pesticide had a defect that caused cancer, male infertility, and depression, plaintiff's strict product liability claim was not based on an insufficient warning and, therefore, was not preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.  153 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (2015).

  Plaintiff's claims for breach of express and implied warranties against pesticide manufacturer under Hawaii law were not preempted by Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as based on labeling requirements, since those claims were derived solely from manufacturer, the warrantor, and were not imposed by state law.  153 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (2015).

  Plaintiff's claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress under Hawaii law were not preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act because those claims were not premised on any allegation that the packaging or labeling of the pesticide provided an inadequate warning of its dangers or should have otherwise been changed.  153 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (2015).

  Plaintiff's state law claim for wrongful death of plaintiff's husband, a pesticide applicator, as a result of manufacturer's wrongful act or negligence was not preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act since it was based on underlying claims that were not preempted.  153 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (2015).

  Plaintiff's state law claims against pesticide manufacturer for wrongful death, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, strict product liability, defective design, testing, or manufacturing, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress were not preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act because the claims were not based upon labeling or packaging requirements, but were based on the idea that the pesticide itself was unsafe.  153 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (2015).

  Where the trial court was not presented with conflicting state and federal statutes because the National Labor Relations Act did not apply to the city and county of Honolulu, the appeals court's application of preemption principles to conclude that employee was not required to exhaust employee's contractual remedies under the collective bargaining agreement was erroneous.  121 H. 1, 210 P.3d 501 (2009).