Case: Kahoʻohanohano v. State of Hawaiʻi

1CCV-24-0000269 | Hawaii state trial court

Filed Date: Feb. 27, 2024

Closed Date: Oct. 17, 2025

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case involves a challenge to midwife licensure restrictions in Hawai’i. In 2019, Hawai’i enacted the midwifery restriction law (HRS § 457J), which imposed licensure requirements on midwives in the state. Individuals practicing midwifery without a license, or working alongside unlicensed midwives, faced criminal penalties. The law had an exemption that allowed the practice of midwifery without a license through July 2023.  On February 27, 2024, nine individuals–midwives, midwifery students,…

This case involves a challenge to midwife licensure restrictions in Hawai’i.

In 2019, Hawai’i enacted the midwifery restriction law (HRS § 457J), which imposed licensure requirements on midwives in the state. Individuals practicing midwifery without a license, or working alongside unlicensed midwives, faced criminal penalties. The law had an exemption that allowed the practice of midwifery without a license through July 2023. 

On February 27, 2024, nine individuals–midwives, midwifery students, and women who were or planned to be pregnant–filed a lawsuit in the Hawai’i state trial court, challenging the licensure restrictions. The individuals sued Hawai’i, the Hawai’i Attorney General, the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, and its Director. The individuals argued that, by defining midwifery broadly, the law required a license for essentially any one providing care, advice, or information during pregnancy, birth, and postpartum. They also alleged that Hawai’i used arbitrary and discriminatory criteria in deciding eligibility.    

Represented by the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and private counsel, the nine individuals alleged that the midwifery restriction law violated multiple rights guaranteed by the state constitution: the right to reproductive autonomy; to equality of rights; the right to pursue one’s profession free from government interference; and freedom of speech and expression. They also alleged that the law violated the state’s affirmative duty, as laid out in the state constitution, to protect Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices, and that it was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.The individuals sought declaratory relief, as well as a preliminary and a permanent injunction. 

Judge Shirley M. Kawamura was assigned to the case. The court held a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction on June 10th through 14th. 

On February 28, 2024, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on three of their constitutional claims: the right to privacy, overbreadth, and Native Hawaiian rights. On July 23, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their right to privacy or overbreadth claims. However, the court found that HRS § 457J did unconstitutionally interfere with Native Hawaiian cultural practices, particularly as it provided no “actual and meaningful pathway to exercise their traditional rights.” As the court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and the law was causing them irreparable harm, the court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining penalties against individuals who practiced and taught traditional Native Hawaiian birth care but had no practical pathway to obtain a right to practice under the statute. The court stated that the injunction should remain in effect until a tenable recognition pathway for such traditional practices was formulated. It held that the existing Native Hawaiian practice recognition pathway under HRS § 457J was, in practice, unconstitutional. The court denied all other preliminary relief requested by the plaintiffs.

On May 5, 2025, the Hawai’i state legislature passed new, permanent legislation regulating midwifery that replaced HRS § 457J. The new legislation explicitly affirmed that the “practice of midwifery does not include native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices.” HB1194 HD2 SD3. 

On October 13, 2025, the parties executed a settlement agreement that fully and completely resolved the plaintiff’s claims against the State. The agreement stipulated that there would be no criminal penalties for practicing unlicensed midwifery under Hawai’i law, and that apprenticeship-trained midwives would be eligible for a midwifery license. On October 17, 2025, the court approved the settlement agreement.

As of April 16, 2026, this case appears to be closed. 

Summary Authors

Avery Coombe (9/29/2025)

Audrey Li (4/16/2026)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case
1

24-cv-00269

Plaintiffs' Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Summons

Feb. 27, 2024

Feb. 27, 2024

Complaint

Docket

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory:

Hawaii

Case Type(s):

Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 27, 2024

Closing Date: Oct. 17, 2025

Case Ongoing: No reason to think so

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Midwives, midwifery students, and women who were or planned to become pregnant.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Center for Reproductive Rights

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

State

Hawai'i

Hawai'i Attorney General

Hawai'i Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Other Dockets:

Hawaii state trial court 1CCV-24-0000269

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Sought:

Attorneys fees

Declaratory judgment

Injunction

Relief Granted:

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief denied

Preliminary relief granted

Order Duration: 2024 - 2025

Issues

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination Basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):

Other

Affected Race(s):

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Female

Medical/Mental Health Care:

Medical care, general

Reproductive rights:

Counseling (reproductive rights)

Licensing restriction

Reproductive health care (including birth control, abortion, and others)

Recommended Citation