OHA says state's newest Ceded Lands brief stakes out harder line

I disagree.

According to the Advertiser -

The state previously had argued that it has the authority to manage the ceded lands, but did not argue for ownership rights, as Bennett's new brief does, [OHA attorney Bill] Meheula said.

But the state's first argument in its first brief for cert. filed back in April is unequivocal regarding the state's view of its ownership of the ceded lands -

The Apology Resolution acknowledges the mistreatment native Hawaiians suffered as a result of the 1893 overthrow and recognizes a federal commitment to reconciliation. But the Resolution does not mandate, justify, or even contemplate the imposition of new limits on Hawaii’s sovereign authority to sell, exchange, or transfer its lands for any of the purposes identified in the Admission Act. (Italics added).

And, again in that argument's concluding paragraph, the state asserts it's ownership of the lands in question -

In short, by construing this Resolution to undercut substantive rights and curtail the State’s sovereign authority over its land~, the Hawaii Supreme Court violated every court’s duty when construing federal law to "presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." (italics added).

This isn't to comment one way or another on OHA's argument that there exists a claim against the state's ownership - we'll be able to delve more into that issue once OHA has filed its brief - but it's clear that the state's position as revealed by its first merits brief does not represent a departure from its earlier arguments.