In July 2003, the ACLU filed suit against City and County of Honolulu officials and the Hawai`i Christian Coalition for conspiring to exclude gay groups from the Family Day Parade scheduled for July 5. The exclusion of gay individuals from the Family Day Parade, because of their views and who they are, violates First Amendment rights. The suit was filed in U. S. District Court on behalf of Parents Family Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) of O’ahu, The Center and Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Family Network.

The facts in the case show that the Family Day Parade was co-sponsored and a joint venture between the City and the Hawai`i Christian Coalition. The City also advertised the Parade as open to the entire community and invited everyone to join. Information on the City and Hawai`i Christian Coalition websites and a flyer sent by the City to The Center invited public participation and stated: “Everyone is welcome to join this parade.” However, as soon as our clients sought to participate, the City changed its mind. This kind of discrimination is not allowed under the Constitution.

The lawsuit names as defendants Mayor Jeremy Harris, Deputy Managing Director Malcolm Tom, Deputy Director of Facility Maintenance Alvin Au, Family Day Parade Committee Chair Paulette Williams, Family Day Executive Committee Chair Garrett Hashimoto and the Hawai`i Christian Coalition.

According to the complaint, the City and the Hawai`i Christian Coalition have widely promoted the event as a co-sponsored one. The City extensively advertised the Family Day Festival using taxpayer funds through flyers, radio commercials, the City website and posters in City buildings and City buses.According to these advertisements, the event will include a parade, entertainment, displays, food, fireworks and a movie.

Representing several Honolulu residents and taxpayers, the ACLU filed suit in First Circuit Court against the City and County of Honolulu, Mayor Jeremy Harris, and City Deputy Director Malcolm Tom for using the City’s Family Day Festival to promote fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs and to raise money for fundamentalist religious organizations associated with the Hawaii Christian Coalition. This lawsuit is a follow up to the ACLU’s federal case regarding exclusion of gay individuals from the related Family Day Parade which is still pending.

In Beckman, the ACLU is representing Reverend Vaughn Beckman, Holly Huber, Rupert Teves, Juliet Begley, and Michael Golojuch, Jr.

According to the complaint, the City did not allow equal access to all organizations to perform at Family Day events but invited only select groups and individuals to provide entertainment. The City reserved the vast majority of the entertainment and programming opportunities at Family Day for evangelical Christian churches. No other religious viewpoints, other than that of fundamentalist Christians, were represented at Family Day.

The lawsuit further alleges that applications posted on the City website directed corporate sponsors and individuals wishing to participate in the Family Day Festival to send checks directly to a Christian Family Charities, a non-profit organization that raises money for conservative Christian religious organizations including the Hawaii Christian Coalition, Hawaii Right-to-Life, and several Christian Churches on the mainland and in Hawaii. The ACLU believes that the City’s actions here are a part of a broader policy and practice of using City events, like Sunset on the Plains, supported by taxpayer dollars, to provide certain religious groups special access to large audiences to which they can spread their message. This mixing of government with religion is forbidden by the Constitution.

This is a related case to PFLAG and Beckman (see above). On February 14, 2004, the City and County of Honolulu and Mayor Harris continued their practice of cosponsoring evangelical Christian events by supporting this “Family Day International Outreach” event and advertising the event only on the Hawaii Christian Coalition website, as “cosponsored by the City and County of Honolulu.”


Here, Plaintiff Reverend Watland learned that the City, despite the related cases, cosponsored yet another festival with the Hawaii Christian Coalition’s newest spinoff, “Family Day International Outreach.” This time, however, the only publicity about the event was on the Hawaii Christian Coalition’s website and thus, as a practical matter, was an event limited to the members of the Hawaii Christian Coalition and their invitees. Those that did not share the fundamentalist Christian religious views were, for all practical purposes, excluded from the event in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The event began with an evangelical Christian prayer followed by a Christian rapper directed at proselytizing to young impressionable children. This case seeks declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief relating to Defendants use of the City’s Family Day Festival to promote, endorse and inculcate fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs and to raise money for fundamentalist religious organizations associated with Christian Family Charities and the Hawaii Christian Coalition. The use of City resources to endorse and promote Christian religious organizations and messages violates the Establishment Clause.

After many months of attempting to resolve the issue without litigation, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of public school student James Ornellas challenging the constitutionality of McKinley’s High School’s “Code of Honor” requesting “Love for God.”

McKinley’s “Code of Honor” reads in part: “As a student of McKinley, I stand for ... Love of God and all Mankind.” While a student originally composed the Code of Honor in 1927, it was, until recently, not prominently displayed at McKinley High School. However, several years ago, a staff person rediscovered a plaque engraved with the Code of Honor and the plaque was placed by school officials in the school’s Hall of Honor at the main entrance to the school. The Code of Honor was subsequently printed on posters, placed in the school handbook, and displayed in classrooms. In addition, the Code of Honor was frequently recited aloud at graduation ceremonies and student assemblies.

The ACLU contended that the inclusion of “Love For God” in the school Code of Honor conveyed the message that in order to be “honorable” a student must love “God.” This is improper because it excludes students who belong to minority religious faiths and students who are non-religious.

The State agreed to ACLU terms to settle the case in January 2003. Under the terms of the settlement: all posters, flyers, and other items containing the Code were permanently removed from school premises; the Code was removed from the school website; the Code will no longer be printed in the McKinley school planner, handbook, or other materials; school officials will not support, endorse, or encourage the recitation of singing of the Code at school functions, including graduation ceremonies; and school officials will not endorse or promote the Code as the official or unofficial school code of honor.

In February 2004, the ACLU filed an Amicus Curiae to the Supreme Court of Hawai`i in support of a Writ of Mandamus to express its view that the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances is among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights. SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Political Participation) suits - retaliatory lawsuits that impermissibly chill petitioning rights of individuals and groups by forcing them to defend against meritless lawsuits - infringe on those liberties. Citizen participation and civic activism are vital elements to the proper functioning of government in a robust democracy and SLAPP suits cripple that very function.

Protection of the right to petition the government for redress of grievances is necessary so as not to chill the exercise of preeminent First Amendment rights of political participation by non-governmental groups and individuals and other private citizens and community-based advocacy groups, like the ACLU, in a wide spectrum of activities. On March 18, 2004, the Supreme Court of Hawai`i denied the underlying Writ of Mandamus stating that Petitioner may pursue a remedy by appeal.

The ACLU conducted onsite visits at the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility (HYCF) during the summer of 2003 in response to reports of serious problems. During our visits, we inspected physical conditions, interviewed the Director of the Facility, and met individually with a total of approximately 70 kids.

Our investigation identified a pattern of egregious conduct and conditions at HYCF. These problems include: gross overcrowding, unduly punitive rules and restrictions; confining of kids to bare, empty cells 18-22 hours a day; abusive discipline; brutality and use of excessive force against kids; sexual assault and harassment; lack of privacy at the girl’s facility; grossly inadequate programming; lack of exercise and recreation; inadequate schooling and lack of access to education; failure to comply with IDEA; unreasonable limitations on outside contact with families, friends, and attorneys; inadequate training and supervision of staff; inadequate medical care; inadequate mental health care; and inadequate grievance procedures.

We sent a 34-page report to the attorney general and the governor on August 14, 2003. In response to the report, Governor Lingle replaced the administrator of the facility and several youth correctional officers have been indicted for physical and sexual abuse of kids. However, conditions at the facility remain egregious and the ACLU is preparing for possible litigation regarding conditions at the facility.

On August 14, 2003, we filed an Amicus Brief before the Hawaii Supreme Court supporting the position of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission that state law prohibitions on “sex discrimination” include discrimination against transgender people. On March 17, 2004, the Supreme Court of Hawai`i held that the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission did not have jurisdiction to hear the Executive Director's Petition because the ED lacked standing to bring a declaratory action because he is not “an interested party” as defined in the statute. The decision did not foreclose on the bringing of a declaratory relief action by the Complainant in this matter.

This case, filed December 10, 2001, is a class action challenging the over-detention of individuals by the State of Hawaii Department of Public Safety (“DPS”). The ACLU identified a large number of individuals statewide who, despite being ordered released by the court, were detained anywhere from days to months after they were entitled to be released. Included among these individuals are hundreds of innocent people who were wrongly detained after being acquitted of all charges against them. These acquitted individuals, along with others whose cases had been dismissed, were chained with other prisoners, transported back to prison, and forced to submit to invasive strip and visual body cavity searches.

As a direct result of the filing of this lawsuit, the State has stopped returning acquitted individuals custody and now releases them directly from court. In addition, the State has made changes to reduce incidents of overdetention of individuals who are ordered released by the Court for other reasons, such as dismissal of charges, or a sentence of time-served. The parties have recently reached agreement that will settle this case on very satisfactory terms. Details forthcoming.

According to the complaint filed in Federal District Court, Hawaii Academy of Arts and Science Principal Steven Hirakami, and the school secretary, Andrea Irvine, impermissibly strip-searched a 15 year-old girl. The girl was ordered to strip naked at the direction of Principal Hirakami in front of the school secretary. The girl and two other students were singled out as suspects in an alleged theft of thirty dollars from a school van driver’s fanny pack. The girl did not take the money and was cleared of any wrong-doing. However, the girl, and the other female student were taken individually into a room by the school secretary, strip-searched, and forced to stand naked while the secretary looked through their clothes. The third student, a male, was not strip-searched. This student’s right to privacy was grossly violated by the school administration. The Department of Education’s policies clearly and specifically prohibit strip-searching of students. It is difficult to understand how the principal allowed this humiliating and demeaning treatment to occur.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Hawaii in an appeal from a conviction for “prostitution” allegedly committed during a lapdance and arising out of a warrantless raid on a strip club and a warrantless arrest, the crime allegedly being committed weeks before the raids.

In a lawsuit filed on behalf of 46 registered voters in the Supreme Court of Hawaii, the ACLU seeks to invalidate the result of the ratification vote on constitutional amendment Question 3 and prevent inclusion of the amendment in the State Constitution. The lawsuit argues that the State's failure to follow prescribed procedures and their breach of duty to present ballot issues truthfully and accurately undermined citizens' right to cast informed votes and compromised the fundamental fairness of the election.

The amendment affects long-existing constitutional protections. Specifically, it eliminates the rights of citizens to be charged with felonies only after those charges are first aired before a grand jury or a judge to ensure that there is sufficient basis for the charges.

The complaint alleges that the Voter Information Pamphlet prepared and disseminated by State officials to every registered voter misrepresented the content of the amendment and wrongly presented future possibilities, as to how information charging might work, as present fact. While disseminating this misinformation, State officials also failed to follow constitutionally mandated procedures requiring them to publish the text of the amendment in newspapers and to make the text available at all public libraries.

The ACLU argued that due to the State's negligence, many voters voted in the dark, relying on the State's misinformation without ever seeing the text of the amendment. The lawsuit further contends that regardless of the merits of information charging, voters have an undeniable state constitutional right to see the text of the amendment that they are voting on and to not be misled by the government.

On February 24, 2004, the Supreme Court vindicated the concerns of the ACLU that Ballot Question 3 was improperly ratified because the State failed to follow the proper procedures in placing a proposed constitutional amendment before the electorate.

Suit in First Circuit court against Peter Carlisle for using public money, time and materials to advocate for passage of amendment three and for violating city laws as well as the free speech rights of taxpayers when he improperly spent nearly $2,500 in public funds and used other public resources to campaign for the passage of Ballot Question 3 in last year’s general election.
“The government’s use of public resources to advocate for one view over another in an election violates not only the First Amendment rights of citizens who have contrary views, but additionally, when government resources are directed to one view point over another, the right of all citizens to a free and fair election is seriously compromised.”
The issue here is not about the prosecutor’s right to free speech, but about his illegal use of taxpayer resources to improperly influence the outcome of the election. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of taxpayer and journalist Robert Rees. The ACLU seeks the return of taxpayer money used by Carlisle to campaign during the election. This lawsuit is on behalf of those who saw their views on Ballot question 3 overwhelmed by false campaigning conducting by the City Prosecutor’s office at the expense of taxpayers.

This is a class-action lawsuit in Federal District Court on behalf of William Remmers Jr. and other pretrial detainees at Oahu Community Correctional Center (OCCC) who were denied their constitutional right to vote in the November 2000 elections. Dwayne Yoshina, state chief elections officer, and Ted Sakai, director of the state Department of Public Safety, and various Public Safety employees are named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Remmers was eligible to vote in 2000, but was detained in pretrial custody at OCCC. Prior to the November elections, officials at OCCC told detainees to sign-up on a sheet posted on the wall and that ballots would be provided to them on Election Day. At least 10 individuals, including Remmers, signed up for ballots. However, when Election Day arrived, ballots were never provided and individuals who expressed concern regarding when they would be allowed to vote were either ignored or rebuffed by prison guards.

Remmers subsequently filed three complaints with OCCC regarding his being denied his right to vote and was given conflicting explanations. Among the reasons given that no certified officials were present at the prison to monitor the absentee ballots and that the prison was not responsible for distributing absentee ballots to inmates. The ACLU seeks an injunction to ensure that detainees are not denied the right to vote in future elections and monetary damages on behalf of those individuals denied the right to vote.

• In October 2003, the ACLU and Eric Seitz successfully intervened to allow the Not in Our Name March to proceed without the imposition of prohibitive fees of $2000.00 for cones and signs by the City and County of Honolulu.
• In November 2003, the ACLU successfully intervened on behalf of a 15 year old girl whose parents were attempting to force her to undergo an abortion without her consent.
• In January 2004, the ACLU successfully intervened to reestablish regularly scheduled outdoor recreation time for special needs inmates in high security at Halawa Correctional Facility after they had not received outdoor recreation time since the Summer of 2003.
• In February 2004, the ACLU successfully intervened with Warden Sequeira after we received reports of foreign objects – industrial staples, hair, plastic pieces and cigarette butts – turning up in food served to pre-trial detainees at Oahu Community Correctional Facility.

• Home
• News
• Special Events
• About The ACLU
• Legal
  • HYCF Report
  • Litigation Report
• Requesting Assistance
• Legislative
• Public Education
• Join/Support
• Work / Volunteer
• Links
• Contact Us