Liberal circuit judge blasts SCOTUS conservatives, says Hawaii will defy high court

A Hawaii Supreme Court justice used a ruling overturning a decades-old criminal conviction to deliver a blistering rebuke of Chief Justice John Roberts' Supreme Court, accusing the nation's highest court of weakening constitutional rights, damaging democracy and advancing a political agenda.

Justice Todd Eddins authored the 91-page majority opinion Wednesday in State v. Granillo , a case involving a man convicted in 1990 of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman on Maui. The court ordered a new trial after concluding that hair and fiber evidence presented by an FBI expert relied on forensic science that has since been discredited.

But in roughly eight pages of the opinion, Eddins argued Hawaii's courts should not look to the Roberts Court when interpreting the state constitution, using the case to deliver an unusually sharp critique of the nation's highest court.

LAWYER WHO BEAT HAWAII GUN LAW CALLS STATE’S RELIANCE ON BLACK CODE ‘DISGRACEFUL’

"When six justices walk away from those they are supposed to protect, state constitutions hold the line," Eddins wrote, referring to the court's six conservative justices. "That is not defiance. That is the design."

Eddins argued that Hawaii's Constitution provides stronger protections than the federal Constitution as currently interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, and said the Court has abandoned landmark civil rights principles.

Hawaii Supreme Court Justice issued a scathing review of the Supreme Court's most recent rulings, arguing that the High Court has weakened constitutional protections for citizens. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images/ Ballotpedia)

"The Court that now defines federal due process does not honor the work of 1954," Eddins wrote. "It revives the work of 1857. The work of 1896."

Eddins was referring to Brown v. Board of Education, ruled in 1954, which ended racial segregation in public schools, as well as Dred Scott v. Sandford, the infamous 1857 decision denying citizenship to Black Americans and Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 ruling that upheld racial segregation.

Eddins argued that the Roberts Court no longer reflects the constitutional principles established in Brown v. Board of Education, but instead, he argued the Court's originalist approach relies on the same type of constitutional interpretation in the discredited Dred Scott and Plessy decisions.

"Today’s hubristic originalists use the same method to control modern life," Eddins wrote.

John Roberts, chief justice of the US Supreme Court, from left, Elena Kagan, associate justice of the US Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, associate justice of the US Supreme Court, and Amy Coney Barrett, associate justice of the US Supreme Court, during a State of the Union address in the House Chamber of the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN LIMIT ON PARTY CAMPAIGN SPENDING IN COORDINATION WITH CANDIDATES

"The Court overrides what Congress passed," Eddins continued. "It overrides what the people chose. All to serve its own ends. What this Court has done to constitutional rights, democratic institutions, and the rule of law explains why Hawaiʻi’s Constitution takes no instruction from it."

Throughout the opinion, Eddins pointed to many of the Roberts Court's most consequential decisions as evidence that constitutional protections have been weakened, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion; Citizens United v. FEC on campaign finance; Rucho v. Common Cause on partisan gerrymandering; Trump v. United States on presidential immunity; and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which expanded Second Amendment protections.

Eddins accused the Roberts Court of adopting a "colorblind" approach to the Equal Protection Clause that, in his view, ignores the amendment's original purpose of protecting formerly enslaved Black Americans.

"The Roberts Court sees only white," he wrote. "It refuses to acknowledge who the Equal Protection Clause was written to protect."

He also suggested that recent Supreme Court decisions have repeatedly expanded the power of government officials and wealthy interests while reducing protections for individual rights.

"A court that systematically dismantles democratic safeguards, steamrolls constitutional liberties, and tramples human dignity does not chart the course for the Hawaiʻi Constitution," he wrote.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts attends inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo (Reuters)

THOMAS LEAVES NOTHING LEFT UNSAID ON RACIAL GERRYMANDERING DECISION: ‘GO FURTHER’

The opinion quickly drew criticism from legal observers, who said it was highly unusual for a state supreme court opinion to devote so much space to criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The Court issues an unhinged attack on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court," Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan wrote on X. "I haven't ever seen something like this. And it's not good."

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley similarly described the opinion as "devoid of judicial restraint and decorum."

"The Hawaii Supreme Court just issued a truly shocking opinion that unleashed a torrent of rage and recrimination against the majority of the United States Supreme Court, including suggesting that they are de facto racists," Turley wrote on X.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The opinion comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court handed Hawaii a major loss in Wolford v. Lopez, striking down the state's so-called "vampire rule." In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled Hawaii could not require gun owners to get a property owner's permission before carrying a firearm into businesses and other private property open to the public.

Eddins has served on the Hawaii Supreme Court since 2020 after being appointed by then-Democratic Gov. David Ige.