Background
Petitioner Stephen Richard Kenny filed a petition for writ of mandamus and habeas corpus with the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi on June 4, 2026. The petition sought relief typically reserved for extraordinary circumstances, asking the court to compel an action (mandamus) or inquire into the legality of a detention (habeas corpus).
The court, consisting of Chief Justice Devens, Justices Eddins and Ginoza, and two assigned circuit judges, reviewed the petition along with the existing record to determine if the petitioner had met the stringent requirements for such an extraordinary remedy.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi denied the petition for writ of mandamus and habeas corpus. The court determined that the petitioner, Stephen Richard Kenny, “has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to relief,” which is a prerequisite for the issuance of an extraordinary writ. Citing *Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim*, the court underscored that such writs are unwarranted absent this high standard.
In its order, the court also noted that the Chief Justice is authorized by the Hawaiʻi Constitution to assign judges from intermediate appellate or circuit courts to temporarily serve on the supreme court, which occurred in this case with the participation of Circuit Judges Ashford and Char. Additionally, the court referenced Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 660-3, which outlines the basis for issuing writs of habeas corpus. The court further ordered that the filing fee for the petition be waived.
Key Takeaways
- Extraordinary writs of mandamus and habeas corpus in Hawaiʻi are granted only when the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief.
- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court has the discretion to deny such petitions if the high evidentiary threshold is not met.
- The Hawaiʻi Constitution permits the Chief Justice to temporarily assign judges from lower courts to sit on the Supreme Court.
Why It Matters
This order serves as a reaffirmation of the demanding legal standard required to obtain extraordinary writs in Hawaiʻi. It signals to litigants that these powerful judicial remedies are reserved for situations where a legal right is beyond dispute, preventing their misuse for routine appeals or as a substitute for standard legal processes. For attorneys, it reinforces the need to meticulously demonstrate a “clear and indisputable right” when pursuing such petitions.
Moreover, the case offers a procedural note regarding the composition of the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, illustrating its flexibility in drawing upon judges from other state courts to ensure judicial capacity, particularly when justices are recused or vacancies exist.