On June 9, 2005, a group of individuals whose applications for employment with the City and County of Honolulu had been rejected brought a class action lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court District of Hawaii to challenge constitutionality of Hawaii's statutory pre- ...
read more >
On June 9, 2005, a group of individuals whose applications for employment with the City and County of Honolulu had been rejected brought a class action lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court District of Hawaii to challenge constitutionality of Hawaii's statutory pre-employment residency requirement for public employment. The law in question, Hawaii Revised Statute Section 78-1(c), provided:
All persons seeking employment with the government of the State or in the service of any county shall be citizens, nationals, or permanent resident aliens of the United States, or eligible under federal law for unrestricted employment in the United States, and residents of the State at the time of their application for employment and as a condition of eligibility for continued employment. "Resident" means a person who is physically present in the State at the time the person claims to have established the person's domicile in the State and shows the person's intent is to make Hawaii the person's permanent residence. In determining this intent, the following factors shall be considered:
(1) Maintenance of a domicile or permanent place of residence in the State;
(2) Absence of residency in another state; and
(3) Former residency in the State.
Plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU of Hawaii, argued that to be unconstitutional because it had the impermissible purpose of deterring migration into the State. They sought an injunction to bar enforcement of the law.
The District Court (Judge David Alan Ezra) granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Walsh v. City and County of Honolulu, 423 F.Supp.2d 1094 (D.Hawaii 2006). Plaintiffs then filed motions for summary judgment and for permanent injunction to enjoin enforcement of the law. Judge Ezra found the law to be unconstitutional and granted plaintiffs' motions. Defendants' counter motion for summary judgment was denied. Walsh v. City and County of Honolulu, 460 F.Supp.2d 1207 (D.Hawai'i 2006).
Defendants appealed. While the appeal was pending, the challenged provisions of the law were repealed by 2007 Hawaii Laws Act 52 (H.B. 1750). The state then filed an unopposed motion to vacate the district court judgment, due to mootness, which was granted by the Ninth Circuit. The case was remanded to the District Court for closing. Plaintiffs were awarded $135,801.24 in attorney's fees and costs.Dan Dalton - 10/06/2007
Carlos Torres - 06/30/2013