Legal News

?Sorry? May Be a Hard Word, But Does it Confer any Legal Rights?

By Ashby Jones

What is an apology worth? In a court of law, usually not very much.

But what happens when a government makes a formal apology for something? Should that be given any weight in a court?

It’s an issue the U.S. Supreme Court soon will soon mull over.

Here’s the backstory, according to a WSJ column today by Jess Bravin and Louise Radnofsky : In 1993, a century after American sugar planters, financiers and missionaries overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii, Congress said it was sorry. Last year, the Hawaii Supreme Court cited that apology, known as the 1993 Apology Resolution, to block the state from transferring any of the 1.2 million acres of land received from the federal government upon statehood in 1959. Those lands once belonged to the Hawaiian crown or its subjects, and were confiscated by the Americans without compensation.

The resolution, which calls for “reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people,” acknowledges that native Hawaiians never relinquished claims to the land. The court interpreted this to mean that Congress intended there to be an amicable settlement of the land claims, which would be impossible if the state disposed of the disputed land.

“Generally, when a joint resolution…has emerged from legislative deliberations and proceedings, it is treated as law,” Hawaii Chief Justice Ronald Moon wrote for a unanimous court.

Hawaii’s government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments last month. The state concedes that indigenous Hawaiians “have a clear moral basis” for asking the state’s government for compensation, but argues that they have no legal claim to the land.

The Justice Department and 32 states filed briefs backing that position. Upholding the Hawaii Supreme Court’s ruling could discourage Congress from making similar apologies for other historic wrongs, the Justice Department warned, adding that the Apology Resolution was only symbolic.

But Hawaii’s congressional delegation disagrees, and insists the resolution is supposed to have teeth. “Federal courts have interpreted [apologies] to shape national obligations under federal law,” the four lawmakers, all Democrats, said in a friend of the court brief.

YouTube Video of the Day: A few years ago, at a former workplace of ours, a near riot broke out over this very simple question: who’s better, Billy Joel or Elton John? The staff was split 50/50. Since then, we’ve polled groups of people on the question and almost unquestionably, the question leads to a heated debate and a split right down the middle. (Seriously, LB Readers, try it the next time conversation lulls at a party. It’s pretty remarkable.) We have a strong opinion on the matter, but we’re not going to tip our hand. For now, in honor of the post’s title, let’s give you what appears to be the original video for Sir Elton’s 1976 hit.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on March 12, 2009 (boomark / email).