Background
Robert G. Gomes, Jr. brought an appeal challenging a decision of the Employees’ Retirement System (ERS) of the State of Hawai’i. The matter proceeded through the trial court (Case No. 3CCV-22-0000347) and was subsequently reviewed by the Intermediate Court of Appeals (CAAP-23-0000498). Gomes served as the appellant-appellant and cross-appellee, while the ERS served as the appellee-appellee and cross-appellant, indicating that both parties had contested aspects of the ICA’s ruling below.
On April 23, 2026, Gomes filed an Application for Writ of Certiorari seeking review by the Supreme Court of Hawai’i. The underlying dispute involves the Employees’ Retirement System, the state agency responsible for administering pension and retirement benefits for public employees in Hawai’i.
The Court’s Holding
In a brief order dated June 19, 2026, the Supreme Court of Hawai’i — comprised of Chief Justice Devens, Justices McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, and Circuit Judge Johnson sitting by assignment — unanimously accepted Gomes’s Application for Writ of Certiorari. The court ordered that the case be scheduled for oral argument.
The order accepting certiorari is procedural in nature. No merits ruling has been issued. The court’s acceptance signals that it found the questions presented worthy of full briefing and argument, but the substantive issues raised by Gomes’s petition remain to be decided.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court of Hawai’i has accepted certiorari review of the ICA’s decision in a dispute between a public employee and the Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawai’i.
- Oral argument will be scheduled; the parties are to be notified by the appellate clerk regarding timing.
- This is a procedural order only — no merits determination has been made, and the substantive issues remain pending before the court.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court of Hawai’i’s decision to accept certiorari in this matter signals that the justices consider the legal questions at stake — concerning the Employees’ Retirement System and its treatment of Gomes’s claims — significant enough to warrant the court’s highest level of review. Attorneys representing public employees or the ERS in benefits disputes should monitor this case for guidance on the issues ultimately addressed by the court.
Because the underlying merits have not yet been decided at the certiorari stage, practitioners should note that this docket entry reflects only the court’s agreement to hear the case. A substantive ruling will follow after oral argument and further briefing.