A state supreme court opinion accused the United States Supreme Court of “white sight,” and a national group is asking the justices in Washington to punish the authors for it.
Story Snapshot
- Hawaii’s high court opinion said, “The Roberts Court sees only white,” in a 91-page case.
- America First Policy Institute asked the United States Supreme Court to discipline the Hawaii justices under Rule 8.
- The Hawaii opinion spent pages attacking recent United States Supreme Court rulings on many core rights.
- Hawaii lists the named justices on its public roster, confirming who joined the opinion.
AFPI Seeks Discipline Over “White Sight” Language
America First Policy Institute sent a seven-page letter asking the United States Supreme Court to sanction three Hawaii Supreme Court justices after a July 15, 2026 opinion stated, “The Roberts Court sees only white,” and, “That is not blindness. That is white sight, by design.” The group cited Supreme Court Rule 8 and urged suspension or disbarment of the Hawaii justices from practice before the United States Supreme Court, according to contemporaneous reporting. The request targets language published in a signed, official court decision.
The filing springs from a post-conviction ruling, electronically filed as SCWC-22-0000740, that spans 91 pages and bears the signature of Justice Todd W. Eddins, with Justices Sabrina S. McKenna and Vladimir P. Devens joining, and Justice Lisa M. Ginoza concurring separately. The contested lines appear in the body of the opinion, not in offhand remarks. That makes the words part of Hawaii’s formal judicial record, not media chatter. AFPI argues this adopted rhetoric crosses a professional line.
What The Hawaii Opinion Said About The United States Supreme Court
The Hawaii opinion did more than decide one case. It criticized recent United States Supreme Court rulings across major topics, including voting rights, abortion, gerrymandering, campaign finance, religious liberty, presidential immunity, and firearms. The opinion framed the United States Supreme Court as ignoring the people the Equal Protection Clause was meant to shield, using race-charged language to make that claim. The provocative phrasing is what triggered AFPI’s call for discipline, which ties the sanction bid to the text itself.
Hawaii’s judiciary website lists the justices by name, which confirms the public offices of the judges tied to the passage. That clarity matters because it removes any doubt about who endorsed or joined the opinion’s rhetoric. The underlying case record, posted on the Hawaii courts site, verifies the filing date, case number, and authorship that have become the focus of the national dispute.
How Rule 8 Fits And What Could Happen Next
Supreme Court Rule 8 allows the United States Supreme Court to discipline members of its bar for conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court, including suspension from practice before it. AFPI’s letter, as described in reporting, urges the justices to use that authority here. At the same time, Hawaii operates its own Commission on Judicial Conduct with complaint procedures and a range of state-level sanctions for judicial misconduct. That shows there are distinct channels for discipline, depending on the forum and the conduct.
Based on the materials now public, there is no record of a disciplinary ruling. AFPI’s request remains a request, not a judgment. The fact pattern centers on the published words in the Hawaii opinion, not on off-bench acts. That difference matters because courts often treat sharp judicial writing as protected expression, even when many readers find it offensive. Still, AFPI argues that attacking the United States Supreme Court with racialized claims harms the judiciary’s integrity and the rule of law.
Why This Matters For Equal Justice And Respect For The Constitution
Conservatives see judges as guardians of equal justice, not partisans with a pen. When a state high court declares that the United States Supreme Court “sees only white,” many Americans hear contempt for blind justice itself. The line suggests justice should see color first. That clashes with the Constitution’s promise of equal protection under law. It also undermines trust in courts that must fairly read the Second Amendment, protect religious liberty, and enforce election rules without bias.
Bottom Line For Readers
AFPI asked the United States Supreme Court to act under Rule 8 after Hawaii’s top court used racially charged language in an official opinion. The opinion itself is public and signed, so the words are not in dispute. Hawaii’s own conduct commission exists, but AFPI chose the nation’s highest court to send a clear message: judges should not smear the Supreme Court with race-based insults and expect no response. The next move rests with the justices in Washington.
Sources:
washingtontimes.com, dailycaller.com, legalinsurrection.com, nationalreview.com
