Courtroom Suppression of Hawaiian Language

Historical Context of Hawaiian Language Suppression in Courtrooms

The suppression of the Hawaiian language ('Ōlelo Hawaiʻi) in legal proceedings is rooted in colonial and post-overthrow policies that marginalized Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians) culture and identity. During the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi (pre-1893), Hawaiian was the primary language of governance and courts, with legal documents often drafted in Hawaiian first. However, following the 1893 overthrow by American interests and the establishment of the Republic of Hawaiʻi (1894–1898), English became the dominant language in courts and government, reflecting a broader assimilation agenda. The 1896 "English-only" law banned Hawaiian-medium instruction in schools, extending cultural erasure to public spheres, including legal ones. After U.S. annexation in 1898 and statehood in 1959, this suppression persisted despite the 1978 Hawaiʻi State Constitution (Article XV, Section 4) declaring Hawaiian an official language alongside English. Practical enforcement lagged, leading to cases where Kanaka Maoli faced barriers or penalties for using Hawaiian in court, often treated as secondary or disruptive.

This suppression was not always overt bans but manifested through English primacy, lack of interpreters, and judicial rulings prioritizing efficiency over cultural rights, echoing historical efforts to erode Native Hawaiian sovereignty and identity.

Key Court Decisions

Several landmark cases illustrate the tension between constitutional protections and ongoing suppression. These decisions range from affirming Hawaiian's legal status to challenging its practical denial in proceedings.

Metcalf v. Kahai (1856, Kingdom of Hawaiʻi Supreme Court): The court ruled that in cases of discrepancy between Hawaiian and English versions of statutes, the Hawaiian text prevails, as it was the language of the legislators. This affirmed Hawaiian's supremacy in legal interpretation during the monarchy era.
Hardy v. Ruggles (1856, Kingdom of Hawaiʻi Supreme Court): Similarly, the court held that irreconcilable differences between language versions must favor the Hawaiian original, reinforcing its role in courtroom proceedings and records.
The King v. Grieve (1883, Kingdom of Hawaiʻi Supreme Court): A non-Hawaiian was convicted in a lower court for printing an "obscene" Hawaiian-language program. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, citing lack of intent due to the defendant's inability to understand Hawaiian. This highlighted emerging scrutiny of Hawaiian-language materials but protected free expression.
Tagupa v. Odo (1994, U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaiʻi): Bilingual attorney William Tagupa sought to give a deposition in Hawaiian under the Native American Languages Act (NALA, 1990). The court denied this, ruling NALA applies mainly to education, not judicial proceedings, and prioritized English for practicality. This limited Hawaiian's use in federal courts, adding costs and delays for Kanaka Maoli litigants.
Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Department of Education (1996, U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaiʻi): The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) sued for state funding of Hawaiian immersion programs under NALA. The court dismissed the claim, stating NALA creates no enforceable rights or duties for such funding. This indirectly hindered language revitalization efforts tied to legal advocacy.
Clarabal v. Department of Education (2019, Hawaiʻi Supreme Court): In a landmark ruling, the court held that the state must make "all reasonable efforts" to provide access to Hawaiian language immersion education (Ka Papahāna Kaiapuni) under Article X, Section 4 of the state constitution. This responded to historical suppression and vacated a lower court's summary judgment against plaintiffs. It marked the first Supreme Court case directly addressing Hawaiian language rights, boosting advocacy for its use in public institutions, including potential extensions to courts.

Other notable incidents include the 2018 Maui District Court case involving Samuel Kaleikoa Kaeo, where a judge issued a bench warrant after Kaeo identified himself in Hawaiian and refused to switch to English. Though not a full appellate decision, it sparked legislative pushes for clearer policies on Hawaiian interpreters in court and highlighted enforcement gaps post-1978 constitution.

These cases show a progression from affirming Hawaiian's legal primacy in the 19th century to modern struggles for equitable application, with revitalization gaining ground since the 1970s Native Hawaiian Renaissance.

Impact on Kanaka Maoli Culture

The suppression of 'Ōlelo Hawaiʻi in courtrooms and broader institutions has had profound, intergenerational effects on Kanaka Maoli culture, identity, and self-determination. Historically, the 1896 ban and post-overthrow policies led to the language's near-extinction by the mid-20th century, with fluent speakers dropping from nearly 100% of the population in 1778 to fewer than 50 by 1920, and only about 2,000 by the 1980s. This linguistic loss eroded cultural transmission: Hawaiian encapsulates worldview, genealogy (moʻokūʻauhau), land stewardship (mālama ʻāina), and spiritual practices, making its suppression a tool of cultural genocide.

In courtrooms, denial of Hawaiian use rendered Kanaka Maoli "invisible" legally and socially, exacerbating disenfranchisement. Litigants faced warrants, dismissals, or forced assimilation, reinforcing colonial narratives of inferiority and hindering access to justice on their terms. This mirrored broader impacts: privatized lands, banned public use, and English dominance stripped cultural authority, leading to identity fragmentation, higher social issues (e.g., health disparities), and weakened community cohesion. Revitalization since the 1970s via immersion schools (now serving ~13,000 students with high academic outcomes) and laws like NALA has reversed this, fostering cultural pride and resistance. However, ongoing barriers, like underfunded interpreters, perpetuate trauma, with studies showing language loss correlates to diminished perceptions of Native Hawaiian heritage and increased assimilation pressures.

Judges Who Violated Rights of Kanaka Maoli

While many judges upheld or navigated language issues neutrally, several rulings and actions have been criticized for violating Kanaka Maoli rights by prioritizing English and suppressing Hawaiian use, often ignoring constitutional or statutory protections:

Judge Alan C. Kay (U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaiʻi): In Tagupa v. Odo (1994) and Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Department of Education (1996), Kay's decisions denied Hawaiian's practical use in depositions and funding claims, effectively limiting NALA's scope and burdening Native litigants with English-only requirements. Critics argue this perpetuated historical suppression by favoring judicial efficiency over cultural equity.
Judge Blaine Kobayashi (Maui District Court): In the 2018 incident with Samuel Kaleikoa Kaeo, Kobayashi issued a bench warrant after Kaeo spoke Hawaiian, refusing to recognize it despite its official status. This action, later recalled amid backlash, was seen as a direct violation of Article XV, Section 4, evoking colonial-era punishments and sparking calls for judiciary reforms on interpreters.

Historical judges during the Kingdom era (e.g., Chief Justice William L. Lee in Hardy v. Ruggles) generally supported Hawaiian's primacy, but post-overthrow territorial judges (unnamed in records) imposed English dominance without explicit violations documented in key cases. Modern critiques focus on systemic bias rather than individual malice, though these instances fueled advocacy for reparative measures like expanded immersion and court policies.