Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 91
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-7 (2026)

  Declaratory judgment on validity of rules

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §91-7  Declaratory judgment on validity of rules.  (a)  Any interested person may obtain a judicial declaration as to the validity of an agency rule as provided in subsection (b) by bringing an action against the agency in the circuit court or, if applicable, the environmental court, of the county in which the petitioner resides or has its principal place of business.  The action may be maintained whether or not the petitioner has first requested the agency to pass upon the validity of the rule in question.

     (b)  The court shall declare the rule invalid if it finds that it violates constitutional or statutory provisions, or exceeds the statutory authority of the agency, or was adopted without compliance with statutory rulemaking procedures. [L 1961, c 103, §7; Supp, §6C-7; HRS §91-7; am L 2014, c 218, §3]

 

Attorney General Opinions

 

  Agency rule adopted under former version of statute without authority upon statute's amendment.  Att. Gen. Op. 85-13.

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  PASH and the Evolution of Native Hawaiian Rights Protection.  43 UH L. Rev. 550 (2021).

  A Litigator's Approach to Issues Concerning Exercise and Protection of Native Hawaiian Traditional and Customary Rights.  43 UH L. Rev. 592 (2021).

 

Case Notes

 

  Plaintiff required to exhaust remedy under this section before resorting to federal court to attack regulation as unconstitutional.  252 F. Supp. 223.

  Rules not adopted in compliance with chapter 91 are invalid.  55 H. 478, 522 P.2d 1255.

  Dismissal of complaint for declaratory judgment for failure to join indispensable parties held erroneous.  58 H. 292, 568 P.2d 1189.

  "Interested persons."  63 H. 166, 623 P.2d 431.

  Plaintiff had standing under "injury in fact" test to bring action under this section where plaintiff alleged injury by insurer's denial of medical treatment, injury fairly traceable to agency's rules, and decision precluding use of rule would likely provide plaintiff relief.  82 H. 249, 921 P.2d 169.

  A water management area designation under chapter 174C may not be challenged in an original action pursuant to this section.  83 H. 484, 927 P.2d 1367.

  A plaintiff seeking "a judicial declaration as to the validity of an agency rule", pursuant to this section, must "reside or have its principal place of business" in the county in which the adjudicating circuit court sits; initiating an action under this section in the wrong circuit is a defect of jurisdiction mandating dismissal.  114 H. 87, 157 P.3d 526.

  For purposes of declaratory actions brought pursuant to subsection (a), the circuit court of the plaintiff's domicile is the only circuit court that may exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter.  114 H. 87, 157 P.3d 526.

  Petitioner had standing to challenge the validity of §3-122-66 (repealed), Hawaii administrative rules, as mandated by "the needs of justice"; petitioner was not required to satisfy the three-part injury in fact test to obtain standing as an "interested person".  132 H. 333, 322 P.3d 228 (2014).

  The circuit court's ruling that §3-122-66 (repealed), Hawaii administrative rules, was invalid satisfied the statutory mandate of this section; the court did not err in refusing to declare that the rule "has never been valid and has always been ultra vires and void ab initio".  132 H. 333, 322 P.3d 228 (2014).

  Where reserve ballots were issued and delivered to polling places across Hawaii when it was discovered that an insufficient number of ballots were available on the day of the 2012 General Election, the intermediate court of appeals erred in affirming circuit court decision that the ballot order methodology was not a rule subject to the rulemaking requirements of this chapter.  The procedures used to determine that there will be a sufficient number of ballots ordered for each precinct for a primary or general election and the policy for counting votes cast on ballots for the incorrect precinct are "rules" under this chapter and, thus, subject to the rulemaking requirements of this chapter.  138 H. 228, 378 P.3d 944 (2016).

  Under this section, court authorized to order ancillary, affirmative relief.  5 H. App. 419, 697 P.2d 43; 6 H. App. 160, 715 P.2d 813.

  Cited:  939 F. Supp. 746.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Tax Found. of Hawaiʻi v. State., 439 P.3d 127 (Haw. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tax Found. of Hawaiʻi v. State., 439 P.3d 127 (Haw. 2019). · cites it 66× “3d 228 (2014), we clarified the confusion in our case law regarding whether the three-part "injury in fact" test applies to declaratory judgment lawsuits brought pursuant to HRS § 91-7 under which "any interested person" may seek declaratory relief regarding the validity of…”
Asato v. Procurement Policy Bd., State of Hawaii., 322 P.3d 228 (Haw. 2014). · cites it 283× “On January 25, 2011, Asato filed a Complaint asserting 1 HRS § 91-7 provides as follows: § 91-7. Declaratory judgment on validity of rules.”
Hawaii Home Infusion Assocs. v. Befitel, 157 P.3d 526 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 70× “[9] The director's July 2, 2004 reply countered "that HRS § 91-7 pertains to jurisdiction and is not a matter of venue.”
Richard v. Metcalf, 921 P.2d 169 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 31× “Acts 123 and 124, at 202-19, 5 Jackson filed a declaratory judgment action under HRS § 91-7. The circuit court found and concluded that Jackson lacked proper standing “insofar as she has not suffered any harm or injury with respect to the statutes and/or rule(s) at issue.”
Green Party of Hawaii v. Nago., 378 P.3d 944 (Haw. 2016). · cites it 23× “11 In the underlying action, Green Party seeks a declaratory judgment pursuant to *237 HRS § 91-7 12 that certain methodologies and procedures used by the Office of Elections in the 2012 election are invalid under HAPA.”
AlohaCare v. Ito, 271 P.3d 621 (Haw. 2012). · cites it 18× “In this regard, it cannot be said that AlohaCare did not argue that it had standing to appeal as an "interested person" under HRS § 91-8.”
Tamashiro v. Dep't of Human Servs., 146 P.3d 103 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 16× “See HRS § 91-7. A statutory interpretation that eliminates the ability to challenge in state court a state agency rule adopted pursuant to state law "produces an absurd [and] unjust result.”
Ko'olau Agric. Co. v. Comm'n on Water Resource Mgmt., 927 P.2d 1367 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 22× “Rather, the Legislature provided in [HRS §] 174C-46 that judicial review is by appeal, which is on the record.”
Aged Hawaiians v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, 891 P.2d 279 (Haw. 1995). · cites it 14× “In the instant case, the October 8, 1992 order specifically dismissed all of the Aged Hawaiians’ claims with the exception of their HRS § 91-7 claim. One of the dismissed claims involves the alleged deprivation of federal rights under 42 U.”
Costa v. Sunn, 697 P.2d 43 (Haw. App. 1985). · cites it 22× “DSSH’S APPEAL The general question raised by DSSH’s appeal is whether in an HRS § 91-7 (1976) action the circuit court is authorized to grant, in addition to the declaratory judgment, affirmative relief by way of a coercive judgment.”
Coon v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 47 P.3d 348 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 4× “In Count I of the complaint, the Trustees prayed for a judgment declaring that: (1) “[t]o the extent that any or all of the foregoing conduct and decisions [by the City] were engaged in pursuant to informal or unpublished or other agency rules,” such rules *242 were illegal,…”
Life of the Land v. LAND USE COM'N, ETC., 623 P.2d 431 (Haw. 1981). · cites it 6× “” 10 B Having decided there are personal interests and possible rights subject to judicial protection, we next consider whether the criteria prescribed by the procedural statutes invoked, HRS § 91-7 and HRS § 632-1, have also been satisfied.”
Show all 48 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-7(a) — 8 cases
Hawaii Home Infusion Assocs. v. Befitel, 157 P.3d 526 (Haw. 2007). “[9] The director's July 2, 2004 reply countered "that HRS § 91-7 pertains to jurisdiction and is not a matter of venue.”
Tamashiro v. Dep't of Human Servs., 146 P.3d 103 (Haw. 2006). “See HRS § 91-7. A statutory interpretation that eliminates the ability to challenge in state court a state agency rule adopted pursuant to state law "produces an absurd [and] unjust result.”
Tax Found. of Hawaiʻi v. State., 439 P.3d 127 (Haw. 2019). “3d 228 (2014), we clarified the confusion in our case law regarding whether the three-part "injury in fact" test applies to declaratory judgment lawsuits brought pursuant to HRS § 91-7 under which "any interested person" may seek declaratory relief regarding the validity of…”
Asato v. Procurement Policy Bd., State of Hawaii., 322 P.3d 228 (Haw. 2014). “On January 25, 2011, Asato filed a Complaint asserting 1 HRS § 91-7 provides as follows: § 91-7. Declaratory judgment on validity of rules.”
Ching v. Case, 449 P.3d 1146 (Haw. 2019).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-7(b) — 10 cases
Asato v. Procurement Policy Bd., State of Hawaii., 322 P.3d 228 (Haw. 2014). “On January 25, 2011, Asato filed a Complaint asserting 1 HRS § 91-7 provides as follows: § 91-7. Declaratory judgment on validity of rules.”
Tamashiro v. Dep't of Human Servs., 146 P.3d 103 (Haw. 2006). “See HRS § 91-7. A statutory interpretation that eliminates the ability to challenge in state court a state agency rule adopted pursuant to state law "produces an absurd [and] unjust result.”
Hawaii Home Infusion Assocs. v. Befitel, 157 P.3d 526 (Haw. 2007). “[9] The director's July 2, 2004 reply countered "that HRS § 91-7 pertains to jurisdiction and is not a matter of venue.”
Ainoa v. Unemployment Comp. Appeals Div., 614 P.2d 380 (Haw. 1980).
Foytik v. Chandler, 966 P.2d 619 (Haw. 1998).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.