SCOTUS and Hawaii Being Ignored

Saturday, July 11, 2009, the following was posted -- Mashpee Wampanoag Pipedreams, including the following --
.
Within weeks of the 8-1 Carcieri v Salazar decision, a second

strike on fee to trust was issued. This time it came from a case
originating in the state of Hawaii. In the 9-0 decision on Hawaii
v. the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Justice Alito wrote, "It would
raise grave constitutional concerns" Congress sought to "cloud
Hawaii's title to its sovereign lands" after it had joined the
Union. "We have emphasized that Congress cannot, after
statehood reserve or convey....lands that have already been
bestowed upon a state". How many readers of this paper could
be effected by issues concerning land that has been "bestowed
upon a state"; as an original colony, through disestablished
territory or when the territory entered into statehood?
.
Simplified versions may be found here --
SCOTUS WIKI
Opinion Recap: Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs

.

Recently, Federal bill could get Middleboro casino plans back on track ignores the Hawaii decision to which a majority of states' AGs signed onto.

.

Although no expertise is professed, in our midst are legal experts who surely will opine that the Hawaii SCOTUS decision cannot be undone.