A Complex Legal History
The legal challenges to Kamehameha Schools' Native Hawaiian admissions preference have spanned more than two decades, with multiple lawsuits reaching federal courts. This timeline walks through the key moments that shaped—and continue to shape—this ongoing legal debate.
Princess Pauahi's Will
Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, the last direct descendant of King Kamehameha I, died and left her vast estate to create Kamehameha Schools. Her will specified the schools should give preference to "children of Hawaiian blood."
First Lawsuit Filed (Doe v. Kamehameha Schools I)
A family whose child was denied admission to Kamehameha Schools filed a lawsuit under a pseudonym ("John Doe") arguing that the admissions policy violated Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits racial discrimination in contracts.
The District Court's Decision: The trial court agreed that the admissions policy constituted racial discrimination but ruled that it was a valid "remedial plan" similar to affirmative action programs that had been upheld in employment cases.
Ninth Circuit Panel Rules Against Kamehameha
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court. The panel held that Kamehameha's policy violated Section 1981 because it "operates as an absolute bar to admission for non-Hawaiians."
Full Court Reverses: 8-7 Vote Upholds Policy
The Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case "en banc"—meaning all active judges on the court would decide, not just a three-judge panel. In a narrow 8-7 decision, the full court upheld Kamehameha's admissions policy.
- There was a "manifest imbalance" in educational achievement between Native Hawaiian and non-Native Hawaiian children
- The policy was designed to remedy this imbalance
- The policy was appropriately tailored to this remedial purpose
The court also suggested, in alternative reasoning, that Congress may have intended Section 1981 not to apply to programs benefiting Native Hawaiians, given other federal laws that specifically authorize such programs.
Supreme Court Petition and $7 Million Settlement
The plaintiff family petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. However, the parties reached a confidential settlement, and the petition was withdrawn.
A later leak revealed that Kamehameha Schools had paid the family approximately $7 million to settle the case and dismiss the Supreme Court petition.
Second Lawsuit and the Anonymity Issue (Doe v. Kamehameha Schools II)
Another family filed a similar challenge to Kamehameha's admissions policy, again using a pseudonym to protect their identity.
- Threats of violence against the plaintiff families
- A culture described by some as "Kill Haole [white person] Day" in some Hawaiian schools
- The U.S. Attorney warning the public that race-based violence is a federal offense
The Critical Ruling: The district court ordered the plaintiffs to reveal their real names. When the family refused—citing fear of harassment and threats—the court dismissed their case. The Ninth Circuit upheld this dismissal.
Supreme Court Bans Race-Based Admissions at Harvard and UNC
In two landmark cases, the Supreme Court ruled that race-based admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The Court held that using race as a factor in admissions was unconstitutional.
Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), the organization that brought the Harvard and UNC cases, signaled interest in challenging other race-based admissions policies.
New Website Launches: "Kamehameha Not Fair"
Students for Fair Admissions launched a website called "kamehamehanotfair.org," signaling a potential new legal challenge. News spread quickly across Hawaii.
Third Lawsuit Filed: SFFA v. Kamehameha Schools
Students for Fair Admissions filed a new federal lawsuit challenging Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy. Unlike the previous cases:
- Different plaintiff structure: SFFA is suing as a membership organization on behalf of two families (called "Family A" and "Family B" in the complaint), rather than having individual families as named plaintiffs
- Post-Harvard/UNC context: The case arrives after the Supreme Court's 2023 decisions banning race-based admissions
- Anonymity strategy: The families remain anonymous, but SFFA itself is using its real name (avoiding the procedural problem that doomed Doe II)
Where We Are Now
The case is in its early stages in federal district court in Hawaii. The legal proceedings will likely take years and could potentially reach the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit raises questions that have never been definitively resolved by the nation's highest court: Can a private school with a historic mission to serve Native Hawaiians maintain a race-based admissions preference under modern civil rights laws?
- Does Section 1981 allow race-based admissions at private K-12 schools?
- Are Native Hawaiians treated differently under federal law than other racial groups?
- How do the Supreme Court's recent college admissions decisions apply to this case?
- Can a school founded in 1884 with a specific racial mission maintain that mission under 21st-century civil rights law?
This is an educational resource presenting factual information about ongoing litigation.
Content based on public court documents and legal records.
This is not legal advice.