Governor Josh Green’s use of emergency proclamations has come under scrutiny as the Hawaii Supreme Court considers the legality and extent of a governor’s power to issue such orders.
In his less than three years in office, Green has declared over 90 emergency proclamations, prompting questions about the appropriateness of using such executive powers—especially in relation to long-standing issues like Hawaii’s housing shortage.
The case currently under review focuses on whether Hawaii’s housing crisis can be classified as an emergency requiring immediate governmental response as outlined in emergency management statutes.
Green’s administration argues that the governor has broad discretion in defining an emergency and its duration, a stance contested by a group of Maui residents.
Citing the statute that establishes emergencies as events posing imminent threats to public welfare, the residents assert that a housing shortage that has persisted for decades doesn’t meet the criteria for such an urgent declaration.
This legal dispute raises important questions about the balance of power between the executive branch and the legislature, and whether a governor can suspend laws to achieve policy objectives.
David Henkin, a lawyer representing various rights groups, drew parallels between Green’s tactics and former President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order practices.
“It’s a scary world,” Henkin stated, “when the governor, like the president, is saying, ‘I am the law.’”
The severity of this situation is increased by the extensive nature of Green’s emergency declarations, which have encompassed numerous issues, from natural disasters to more recent concerns surrounding housing development.
To provide context, Green’s predecessor, former Governor David Ige, also wielded significant emergency powers, issuing multiple proclamations throughout his tenure, notably during the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises.
While Ige acknowledged the necessity for governors to be able to react swiftly in emergencies, he emphasized that such powers should not be wielded lightly and should primarily address acute crises.
His issuance of emergency proclamations was an approach he regarded as a last resort, necessitated by pressing social conditions, including homelessness and pandemic-related challenges.
In contrast to Ige’s more measured approach, Green has adopted a more aggressive stance on utilizing emergency orders to expedite housing construction, which some critics view as excessive.
His first emergency proclamation related to housing, issued in July 2023, sought to address the critical shortage of housing for residents, which Green labeled a significant crisis, noting a lack of first responders, healthcare workers, and teachers.
Critics raised alarms over Green’s decision to modify legal codes governing construction and environmental protections, suggesting that his sweeping orders could undermine long-standing regulations, especially concerning cultural and environmental goodwill.
In light of this, Henkin represented environmental and civil rights groups, contending that while emergency powers are vital for governors, their boundaries must be more clearly delineated, particularly regarding long-standing social issues.
Despite a modification to the original proclamation—narrowing its focus to affordable housing and scaling back the working group’s oversight role—dissenting Maui residents continued their legal challenge, ultimately appealing to the Supreme Court after their case was dismissed in a lower court.
During recent Supreme Court deliberations, the legitimacy of defining emergencies was a focal point of discussion among justices.
The debate touched upon the broader implications of a governor’s authority to impose emergency measures in response to protracted societal challenges.
One potential outcome from the justices’ review could be a determination of whether the authority granted to governors under state law includes the power to redefine emergencies on a case-by-case basis.
As the arguments unfolded in court, Justice Todd Eddins highlighted the stark contrast between challenging executive overreach at the federal level and Green’s expansive interpretation of his state authority.
The concerns raised in the court make it apparent that the interpretation of what constitutes an emergency could have far-reaching implications for the workings of government and the boundaries of executive power in Hawaii.
Lawyer Lance Collins raised the point that the legislature undoubtedly retains authority to address long-term societal issues and that lawmakers should not be deferring so much power to the governor.
Amidst these legal complexities and the ongoing challenges to Green’s emergency proclamations, prior initiatives to limit gubernatorial powers, such as a bill introduced by Sen. Karl Rhoads, have not advanced significantly.
Rhoads specifically sought to establish clearer limitations on the powers granted to governors during emergencies, suggesting that the legislature should have a say in such crucial decisions.
Ultimately, the Hawaii Supreme Court’s upcoming decision could set important precedents regarding the balance of power in the state and potentially redefine the nature of executive authority in emergency management.
As the justices deliberate, the evolution of this case remains pivotal for understanding the future interaction between emergency powers and legislative responsibility in Hawaii.
image source from：https://www.civilbeat.org/2025/05/will-hawai%CA%BBis-supreme-court-curb-governors-power-to-suspend-laws/
