Today, April 7, 2011, in its first published opinion this month the ICA issued a decision, authored by Chief Judge Nakamura, in an Obama Birther case: Dr. Robert V. Justice v. Loretta Fuddy, No. 30176.
Justice involves a request for disclosure of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
For those unfamiliar with so-called “birthers,” the term is used to describe those who believe that President Obama is ineligible to hold the Office of the President because he is not a natural born citizen – which is a requirement of the United States Constitution.
According to Justice, he possessed “compelling circumstances” to inspect and copy Obama’s birth certificate. Justice argued such circumstances existed because: “The Office of the President is the heart of our nation and the individual holding that office has the responsibility of ensuring national security for the health and safety of the 300 million Americans living on American soil.” On appeal, Justice also noted the President’s control over “nuclear and chemical arsenals.”
The ICA held that although the Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act, HRS ch. 92F, provides for disclosure under compelling circumstances, the provision is directed at requiring access to records in medical or safety emergency situations – neither of which was presented by Justice.
Moreover, HRS 338-18 prohibits public health statistics, including birth records, from being disclosed unless the individual seeking the record “has a direct and tangible interest in the record.” This section also sets forth a list of the individuals who may qualify as having a direct and tangible interest. Justice is not such a person.
The court’s full opinion is here.
Judge Leonard filed a concurring opinion here to reiterate that Justice’s “strong desire to personally verify President Obama’s eligibility” is not a “compelling circumstances” within the meaning of the statute.
UPDATE 4/26/11: The ICA issued an order of correction here.