Sierra Club v. Hawaii Tourism Authority

Summary

The Supreme Court of Hawaii held that the Sierra Club lacked standing to challenge the Hawaii Tourism Authority's award and funding of a tourism marketing contract without first preparing an environmental assessment. The court concluded that the Sierra Club failed to establish injury in fact, traceability, and likely redressability, and rejected its theories of informational, procedural, and merits-based standing. The petition was dismissed.

Holdings

1. Sierra Club failed to satisfy the three-part injury-in-fact test because it did not establish an actual or threatened injury caused by the HTA's marketing expenditures, a fair traceability connection between the expenditures and the alleged injuries, or likely redressability through the requested relief.
2. An alleged informational injury, consisting of the organization's inability to obtain environmental information that an assessment might contain, was insufficient to establish standing.
3. Sierra Club could not rely on so-called procedural standing because it failed to establish the concrete injury and aggrievement required under HRS § 343-7(a); the statute did not give Sierra Club an automatic right to challenge the absence of an environmental assessment.
4. Standing must be established at the beginning of the case and cannot be established through success on the merits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Sierra Club established standing under the three-part injury-in-fact test to challenge the HTA's failure to prepare an environmental assessment.
2. Whether alleged informational injury confers standing.
3. Whether Sierra Club could rely on procedural standing based on the alleged failure to conduct an environmental assessment.
4. Whether standing could be established through success on the merits rather than at the beginning of the case.

Disposition

dismissed