Justice Acoba: taxpayers have standing, but failed to name indispensable party

In a concurring opinion to yesterday's Hawaii Supreme Court decision finding non-native taxpayers lacked standing to challenge property tax exemptions granted to Native lessees under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, Justice Acoba disagreed with the Court's standing analysis, saying

Taxpayers...allege that the denial of an exemption equal to that afforded Hawaiian homestead lessees denies them equal protection under the law. Such injury would seem sufficient for purposes of standing.

...

The majority attempts to characterize the instant case as one involving standing for purposes of a challenge to the Hawaiian homestead lease criteria. However, that is directly contrary to what Taxpayers claim they are challenging. The majority in fact notes that Taxpayers “assert[] that ‘none of the Taxpayers . . . ask for an award of a homestead lease.’” Majority opinion at 39 (brackets omitted). Contrary to the majority’s characterization of the instant suit, Taxpayers specifically challenge the tax exemption.

Justice Acoba nevertheless joined in the result reached by the majority on grounds that the taxpayers had failed to name the United States as a party

[B]ecause Section 4 of the Admission Act provides that the provisions of the HHCA are “subject to amendment or repeal only with the consent of the United States,” the United States must be made a party to this action. Having failed to name the United States as a party to the instant action, Taxpayers cannot pursue their claims.