Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Reaffirms Limits on Collateral Land Use Challenges, but Preserves Path for Environmental Review Claims

On September 12, 2025, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court issued its decision in Maui Lani Neighbors, Inc. v. State of Hawaiʻi (SCWC-16-0000444), addressing how neighbors may challenge zoning and environmental approvals for major projects. 

The case arose from a dispute over the Central Maui Regional Sports Complex, a 65-acre facility approved by the Maui Planning Commission in 2014 through a county special use permit (CUP). 

Background 

Residents opposed to the sports complex formed Maui Lani Neighbors, Inc. (MLN) after the Planning Commission approved the CUP. Instead of intervening in the CUP process or filing a timely appeal under HRS § 91-14, MLN filed suit in circuit court, raising zoning, constitutional, and environmental claims. 

Both the circuit court and the Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed most of the claims, concluding that MLN had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. 

Supreme Court’s Holding 

The Court largely agreed, but clarified important distinctions: 

• Zoning and Due Process Claims: Because MLN members received notice and attended the CUP hearing, they were required to intervene or appeal under HRS § 91-14. The Court reaffirmed that zoning challenges must be pursued through the administrative process, not through collateral lawsuits. 
• Declaratory Judgment Actions: The Court reaffirmed that HRS § 632-1 does not provide an alternative route when HRS § 91-14 offers a special statutory remedy. 
• Constitutional Environmental Claims (Art. XI, § 9): MLN argued that Hawaiʻi’s constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment” provided direct access to court. The Court held that, to the extent such claims were based on zoning statutes (HRS chs. 46 and 205), they were still subject to the HRS § 632-1 limitation. But claims premised on HRS ch. 343 (HEPA) could proceed, because the legislature expressly gave courts jurisdiction under HRS § 343-7. 
• HEPA Claims: The Court held that the Planning Commission lacked authority to decide whether DLNR’s environmental review was sufficient. Circuit courts have original jurisdiction over HEPA challenges, and dismissal of those claims was error. 

Key Takeaways

1. Timely Appeals Are Critical: When a permit is issued after a public hearing, opponents must intervene or appeal under HRS § 91-14. Collateral lawsuits are barred. 
2. Declaratory Relief Is Not a Shortcut: HRS § 632-1 cannot be used to sidestep the administrative appeal process. 
3. Environmental Review Is Different: HEPA challenges remain viable in circuit court, even when project permits are otherwise shielded by the exhaustion doctrine. 
4. Article XI, Section 9 Enforcement: Hawaiʻi’s constitutional environmental right continues to provide an independent basis for judicial review, but its scope depends on the underlying statute.  

This decision reaffirms that permits issued after contested case hearings are secure against collateral zoning challenges, provided proper procedures are followed. It underscores the importance of timely participation in administrative hearings, while preserving a pathway for judicial review of environmental assessments under HEPA.