Hawaii's "Safe Travels" program

Curious777

New Member
Jurisdiction
Hawaii
There are many here in Hawaii getting annoyed at Ige's continued emergency proclamations. There are some parts of it I doubt would be upheld if appealed to federal court. The problem is, I'm assuming is having standing.

The main part I question is that they can arrest you/fine you for merely travelling here without going through the procedures they require.

I'm confused how they can require a US citizen travelling from another US state to do any of this.

For example, they arrested a couple from Kauai and charged them with reckless endangerment for travelling home after knowingly testing positive for covid. More details here:

Kauai couple with COVID-19 charged with reckless endangering for allegedly boarded a flight

Even in this extreme example I'm doubting they have the jurisdictional authority to do such a thing.

If you look up the court documents related to this. The original charge was dropped and they changed it to disorderly conduct - noise on the date of the trial. I'm guessing either it was either a plea bargain, or they knew reckless endangerment would not stick and they managed to get them on disorderly conduct because they were raising a ruckus at the airport when they were being detained (possibly illegally).

As for tourists and such who didn't test positive, but just refuse to pretest or broke quarantine. Even though you will see newspaper reports of people being arrested and bail being set, I could not find a single instance of them actually collecting a fine or charging them with anything when I search court documents for their names.

I'm assuming they know that they can't do this legally, so they just threaten them and the charges are dropped. They likely twist their arms into leaving. I'm just doubting they really have the legal authority to do this if someone was willing to challenge it and go through all the hoops necessary to get standing to challenge it in federal court.
 
That's fantastic, considering you didn't ask a question.

"The main part I question is that they can arrest you/fine you for merely travelling here without going through the procedures they require."

It seems if you don't live here they can just ship you back to the mainland.

I was also wondering if my assumptions were likely correct or not.

However, it seems like it is all likely moot as temporary travel restrictions set by states have been upheld by SCOTUS before.

I guess my question now is, how long can they realistically keep it up before the federal courts would intervene?
 
"The main part I question is that they can arrest you/fine you for merely travelling here without going through the procedures they require."

It seems if you don't live here they can just ship you back to the mainland.

I was also wondering if my assumptions were likely correct or not.

However, it seems like it is all likely moot as temporary travel restrictions set by states have been upheld by SCOTUS before.

I guess my question now is, how long can they realistically keep it up before the federal courts would intervene?

Now that the federal government has decided that they are opening up for international travelers, does it make it harder to justify for Hawaii to be screening domestic travelers?

Does it make it more likely that federal courts would overturn what they're doing if someone brought a lawsuit with proper standing against them?
 
does it make it harder to justify

Harder? No, of course not. The authorities need only say "we do this" and it gets done until a court puts a stop to it.

Does it make it more likely that federal courts would overturn what they're doing if someone brought a lawsuit with proper standing against them?

You're asking for speculation and a prediction. As far as I know, no bookies frequent this website so you aren't likely to find out here.

Now, if you personally, got arrested or had some other adverse action taken against you, consult an attorney and review your options.

Have you been vaccinated?
 
"The main part I question is that they can arrest you/fine you for merely travelling here without going through the procedures they require."

I guess my question now is, how long can they realistically keep it up before the federal courts would intervene?

Hawaii is a very interesting example, they can arrest you for bringing over any non indigenous species to their islands. Why could they not arrest you for bringing in a potentially deadly disease?

One small mishap could wipe out a whole species of native habitat or create a widespread plaque which would be uncontrollable in such a small place as the islands.
 
"The main part I question is that they can arrest you/fine you for merely travelling here without going through the procedures they require."
That is not a question that you have asked of us.

Tell me, is this something that actually affects you, personally?
 
I'm assuming they know that they can't do this legally, so they just threaten them and the charges are dropped. They likely twist their arms into leaving. I'm just doubting they really have the legal authority to do this if someone was willing to challenge it and go through all the hoops necessary to get standing to challenge it in federal court.

I'm really not clear what you're objecting to, but if someone is charged with a crime and believes there are defenses based on the U.S. Constitution or federal law, the person can assert those defenses and, if convicted, can pursue an appeal (although it wouldn't be to federal court until after making it all the way through the state court appeal process).

"The main part I question is that they can arrest you/fine you for merely travelling here without going through the procedures they require."

What are you quoting here?

Who are "they"? What "procedures" are you talking about?

I was also wondering if my assumptions were likely correct or not.

What assumptions?

I guess my question now is, how long can they realistically keep it up before the federal courts would intervene?

Federal courts don't intervene in things. Also, keep what up?

Now that the federal government has decided that they are opening up for international travelers, does it make it harder to justify for Hawaii to be screening domestic travelers?

International travel has never been closed, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Does it make it more likely that federal courts would overturn what they're doing if someone brought a lawsuit with proper standing against them?

Depends on what "it" refers to and "what they're doing" and what the lawsuit alleged and sought.
 
Tell us how it is NOT constitutional? Just because you don't like something doesn't make it unconstitutional. It doesn't seem to treat citizens of non-Hawaii differently than those of Hawaii (that would be unconstitutional) nor places any unconstitutional restraints on commerce.
 
This wasn't mean to be a troll. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

I get that federal courts don't intervene. It would take someone with standing to keep appealing it until there are no more possible remedies by the state.

I get that there are past decisions that allow suspension of constitutional guarantees for disease.

Protecting against invasive species is not the same as limiting a citizens movement within the US though. So I'm not sure why someone is comparing these two.

I'm also 90% positive those guys at the airport who check for invasive species are federal employees.

As was mentioned in what I linked to above there are federal cases that support this.

Travel restrictions were not fully lifted federally until earlier this month.
US reopens to international travel, allows happy reunions

There were mentions in local news that Governor Ige's authority to continue to restrict travelers was "running out legally" As in he had kept them in place for too long, and I was just looking for opinions on this.

It's especially interesting considering the vaccination rate here is probably the highest in the nation, it just seems extremely hard to justify further restrictions at this point and the legislature is useless despite barking about him continuing his emergency orders.

I get you guys aren't bookies or whatever... so sorry for bothering you. I am not in any legal jeopardy myself. I just thought it rather weird that it was fine to arrest someone for merely travelling home. Disease positive or not. I would think this would be purely in the federal jurisdiction. Airline rules are another thing, but that isn't the same as a state punishing someone for doing this.
 
Last edited:
I get that there are past decisions that allow suspension of constitutional guarantees for disease.

Protecting against invasive species is not the same as limiting a citizens movement within the US though. So I'm not sure why someone is comparing these two.

I'm also 90% positive those guys at the airport who check for invasive species are federal employees.

It is more strict to protect against invasive diseases, have you ever been to Hawaii? Pretty place and you have not lived till you have seen the sunset off the North Shore, nothing like it in the world. With that said, the natives are not really happy with westerners and it is a touchy subject. The colonists when they landed there brought with them diseases which wiped out whole tribes of the indigenous people who lived there. They had never been exposed to those diseases before, and were very susceptible to them. They are very protective of the resources there and have strict rules about removing natural resources and bringing in foreign species (animals, plants, etc.). These rules have been established to protect the islands from potentially invasive species which could impact and wipe out whole native competing species. The Mongoose is an excellent example, Hawaii does not have squirrels or native rodents but they introduced the Mongoose to help control the rat population. However, the Mongoose don't like rats and now the Mongoose is more destructive than the rats they were introduced to try to control.

I am by no means a liberal progressive with the exception of certain issues and this is more I would consider to be an issue where I side with the progressives. However, I consider myself a right leaning middle of the road conservative.
 
I live in Hawaii. What was the very first sentence in my first post?

People here are legit annoyed with Ige. There's hardly anyone who doesn't think he is being too cautious.

What does any of what you're talking about have anything to do with the COVID travel restrictions here? That's what Hawaii's "Safe Travel" program is about. Of adults I believe 90%+ have had at least one dose.

The people at the airport doing the screening you are talking about are FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. USDA I believe. Not the STATE!

I'm saying he is really stretching his legal limits by pretending he has authority over something in federal jurisdiction. At this point it is no longer an emergency, it is an ongoing public health issue.

At this point how can anyone seriously argue otherwise?

More info:

Despite strong vaccination rates, Hawaii's Safe Travels program likely isn't ending anytime soon

State wide we are 72.2% fully vaccinated for the whole population, 84.5% with at least one shot, and 98.9% with at least one shot for ages 12+. Our most vulnerable 50+ are 99.9% vaccinated and they accounted for 89% of the deaths. No one under 18 years of age has died in our State. 96% of those who died had secondary conditions.

I'm just saying if a case made it to the federal courts I would be extremely surprised if they didn't smack Ige in the face.
 
Last edited:
I live in Hawaii. What was the very first sentence in my first post?

People here are legit annoyed with Ige. There's hardly anyone who doesn't think he is being too cautious.

What does any of what you're talking about have anything to do with the COVID travel restrictions here? That's what Hawaii's "Safe Travel" program is about. Of adults I believe 90%+ have had at least one dose.

The people at the airport doing the screening you are talking about are FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. USDA I believe. Not the STATE!

I'm saying he is really stretching his legal limits by pretending he has authority over something in federal jurisdiction. At this point it is no longer an emergency, it is an ongoing public health issue.

At this point how can anyone seriously argue otherwise?

More info:

Despite strong vaccination rates, Hawaii's Safe Travels program likely isn't ending anytime soon

State wide we are 72.2% fully vaccinated for the whole population, 84.5% with at least one shot, and 98.9% with at least one shot for ages 12+. Our most vulnerable 50+ are 99.9% vaccinated and they accounted for 89% of the deaths. No one under 18 years of age has died in our State. 96% of those who died had secondary conditions.

I'm just saying if a case made it to the federal courts I would be extremely surprised if they didn't smack Ige in the face.


It is possible, and maybe. When we were there I noticed a lot about the islands and did not do a lot of tourist stuff. Also noticed their is a big switch there political going away from the traditional democrats with the republican candidates gaining huge traction. Good I hope so, but I would say it depends like many things in this country what Judge you get and how they politically lien as to what that outcome would be.
 
Being annoyed with politicians doesn't mean things are unconstitutional. Sometimes the right decisions are unpleasant ones. The populace has become a bunch of whiny children when they don't get their way and this was intensified by having a two year old in the White House for four years. None of these people know real hardship. Talk to your grand parents who lived through WWII (or even perhaps your parents that grew up in the Viet Nam or 70's gas crisis era).
 
Being annoyed with politicians doesn't mean things are unconstitutional.

It's unconstitutional four different ways. Courts have allowed temporary restrictions to stand, but once they cease to be temporary they are most certainly outside of the jurisdiction of the state of Hawaii.

People here hating Ige is ancillary.
 
Huh? You've said nothing that makes any sense. Temporary or not isn't a criteria that makes things constitutional or not. What aspect of the constitution do you thnk takes this out of the state's hands? Just about anything not reserved to the federal government by the Constitution (though interstate commerce is fairly broad) is reserved to the states. On the commerce issue, as long as they aren't treating citizens of other states differently than there own, I'm not seeing a constitutionality issue.
 
Back
Top