Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: title, url. URLs might have been anonymized. Add: authors 1-1. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Abductive | Category:Articles needing cleanup from May 2024 | #UCB_Category 83/290 |
→Legal career: fixed ref errors |
||
Line 62:
'''Billy Kenoi.''' Eddins represented then Hawai‘i County Mayor Billy Kenoi in 2016 who was charged with four counts of theft and one count of making a false statement under oath.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=2016-11-01 |title=Not guilty: Jury acquits Hawaii Mayor Billy Kenoi on all counts |url=https://www.khon2.com/local-news/not-guilty-jury-acquits-hawaii-mayor-billy-kenoi-on-all-counts/ |access-date=2024-05-09 |website=KHON2 |language=en-US}}</ref> Supporters in the courtroom cried when the jury found Kenoi not guilty.<ref name=":1" /> Eddins described the accusations as “flimsy” and “an odious attempt to take down a once-in-a-generation, good decent man.”<ref name=":1" />
'''Alison Dadow.''' In a nationally followed case, Eddins represented Alison Dadow (also known as Alexandria Duval), who was accused of killing her twin sister by driving their car off the Hana Highway in Maui.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=
'''Tayshea Aiwohi.''' Eddins won a landmark victory at the Hawai‘i Supreme Court in ''State v. Tayshea Aiwohi''. The State charged Aiwohi with manslaughter because she smoked methamphetamine while pregnant and her son died shortly after birth.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=State v. Aiwohi |url=http://oaoa.hawaii.gov/jud/opinions/sct/2005/26838.htm |access-date=2024-05-09 |website=oaoa.hawaii.gov}}</ref> Eddins defended Aiwohi and argued that a mother could not be prosecuted for conduct that harmed a fetus because a fetus was not a person. Eddins warned that if a mother can be prosecuted for conduct toward a fetus, then a mother could be criminally charged for caffeine or tobacco use while pregnant.<ref>{{Cite AV media |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kPivLgZ-lI |title=Todd Eddins wins landmark women's rights case |language=en |access-date=2024-05-09 |via=www.youtube.com}}</ref> The court agreed with Eddins, holding that under Hawai‘i law, a person is a “human who has been born and is alive.”<ref name=":3" /> The high-profile case examined the ethical, scientific, and public policy issues that arose from the co-occurrence of pregnancy and drug dependency.
Line 85:
'''Gun Rights.''' Eddins authored a unanimous opinion declaring that article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution creates only a collective, militia-based right to bear arms, not an individual one.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web |title=State v. Wilson, 154 Hawaiʻi 8, 543 P.3d 440 (2024) |url=https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/SCAP-22-0000561.pdf}}</ref> Article I, section 17 contains the same language as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Eddins’ opinion explained why the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court gives the same words a different meaning than the U.S. Supreme Court, criticizing the Supreme Court's decisions in ''D.C. v. Heller'', ''Chicago v. McDonald'', and ''NY Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen''. Eddins’ opinion did not interpret the Second Amendment or nullify the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment. Rather, it decided that Wilson did not have standing to challenge his conviction under the Second Amendment, because he never bothered to apply for a concealed carry license.<ref name=":9" /> The opinion sharply criticized the U.S. Supreme Court's misuse and distortion of the text, history, and purpose of the Second Amendment. Eddins wrote that the Second Amendment was intended to preserve State militias, not “someone packing a musket to the wigmaker just in case.”<ref name=":9" /> The opinion gained significant media attention for quoting the HBO hit series The Wire to show that the Constitution is not “caged” and that a backward-looking approach to the Constitution is ill-suited to contemporary times.<ref>{{Cite news |date=February 9, 2024 |title=Hawaiiʻs high court cites 'The Wire' in its ruling on gun rights |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/02/09/1230580485/hawaii-high-court-the-wire-gun-rights |work=NPR}}</ref> “The thing about the old days, they the old days” Wire character Slim Charles (and Eddins) said.<ref>{{Cite AV media |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R94t8E71Ct0 |title=The Wire {{!}} The Old Days |language=en |access-date=2024-05-09 |via=www.youtube.com}}</ref>
'''Climate Change.''' Hawaiʻi's Constitution, article XI, section 9 provides every person “the right to a clean and healthful environment.”<ref>{{Cite web |title=State Constitution |url=https://lrb.hawaii.gov/constitution/ |access-date=2024-05-09 |website=lrb.hawaii.gov |language=en-US}}</ref> Eddins authored a majority opinion construing this provision to include “the right to a life-sustaining climate system.”<ref name=":10">{{Cite web |title=Matter of Hawaiʻi Electric Light Company, 152 Hawaiʻi 352, 526 P.3d 329 (2023) |url=https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/SCOT-22-0000418.pdf}}</ref> Eddins wrote, “the reality is that yesterday's good enough has become today's unacceptable. The [Public Utilities Commission] was under no obligation to evaluate an energy project conceived of in 2012 the same way in 2022. Indeed, doing so would have betrayed its constitutional duty.”<ref name=":10" /> This is the first United States decision to declare a stable climate as an affirmative right.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Hijazi |first1=Jennifer |
'''Originalism.''' Eddins has been an outspoken critic of originalism and the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.<ref name=":8" /> He has criticized originalism for chaining itself strictly to the past.<ref name=":9" /> His opinions have observed that when the Constitution was ratified, women, minorities, and non-property owners did not share the same legal rights or political participation as the white, male, property owners who drafted the Constitution.<ref name=":9" /> In his ''Sunoco'' concurrence, Eddins wrote, “Originalism revives their value judgments. To constrain the value judgments of contemporary judges!”<ref name=":8" /> At his confirmation hearing before the Hawaiʻi State Senate, Eddins called originalism “a silly way to interpret the law.”<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lovell |first=Blaze |date=2020-11-17 |title=Senators Dig In To Hawaii Supreme Court Nominee's Positions |url=https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/11/senators-dig-in-to-hawaii-supreme-court-nominees-positions/ |access-date=2024-05-09 |website=Honolulu Civil Beat |language=en}}</ref> His opinions have criticized originalists on the U.S. Supreme Court for cherry-picking history and getting the facts wrong to advance preferred policy preferences.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wilkinson |first=Francis |date=February 15, 2024 |title=Hawaii Rightly Rejects Supreme Court’s Gun Nonsense |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-15/hawaii-justices-rebuke-us-supreme-court-s-gun-decisions?embedded-checkout=true |access-date=2024-05-09 |website=www.bloomberg.com}}</ref> He has chided the Supreme Court for its hypocrisy and selective application of originalism.<ref name=":8" /> Eddins has also called the Supreme Court out on its claim that originalism constrains judges’ personal views. In ''Sunoco'', he wrote that “enduring law is imperiled. Emerging law is stunted. A justice’s personal values and ideas about the very old days suddenly control the lives of present and future generations.”<ref name=":8" />
'''Insurer's Duty to Defend.''' Eddins has opined on an insurance company's duty to defend a policyholder under Hawaiʻi law. In ''St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Bodell Construction Co.'', Eddins wrote that Hawaiʻi law has a broad duty to defend, so an insurer can't try to recoup its defense costs from a policyholder unless the insurance policy contains an express reimbursement provision.<ref>{{Cite web |title=St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Bodell Construction Co., 153 Hawaiʻi 381, 538 P.3d 1049 (2023) |url=https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/SCCQ-22-0000658.pdf}}</ref>
| |||