The People of Hawaii would like to share their islands with you.
Premier spots around Hawaii are breeding grounds for the world’s best windsurfers.
Windsurfing may not have originated in Hawaii, but the sport’s capital and greatest champion both call the Islands home.
The sport was created in the mid-1960s, when two friends—sailor Jim Drake and surfer Hoyle Schweitzer—got together and wondered how their favorite pastimes could be combined. An aeronautical designer by profession, Drake came up with the idea of an articulated mast. In 1968, they patented the first windsurf board.
Today, the world’s top windsurfers flock to Hookipa Beach Park on Maui, where these ocean daredevils perform amazing aerial maneuvers. Blessed with optimal wave and wind conditions, Hookipa (located on the island’s north shore, just east of lower Paia) has been called the “Aspen of windsurfing.” In his book, Great Outdoor Adventures of Hawaii, Rick Carroll describes Hookipa Beach as “the home of the Maui Air Force,’ those high-flying aerialists who smash waves head-on to gain hang-time’ up in the air like junior birdmen and birdwomen.”
On March 7, 2017, the state of Hawaii brought a civil action challenging the executive order, asking for declaratory judgment and an injunction halting the order. The State of Hawaii moved for leave to file an Amended Complaint pertaining to Executive Order 13780. Doug Chin, Hawaii’s attorney general, publicly stated, "This new executive order is nothing more than Muslim Ban 2.0. Under the pretense of national security, it still targets immigrants and refugees. It leaves the door open for even further restrictions.” Hawaii’s legal challenge to the revised ban cites top White House advisor Stephen Miller as saying the revised travel ban is meant to achieve the same basic policy outcome as the original.
The Amended Complaint lists eight specific causes of action pertaining to Executive Order 13780:
On March 15, 2017 United States District Judge Derrick Watson issued a temporary restraining order preventing sections 2 and 6 of executive order 13780 from going into effect. In his order, Judge Watson ruled that the State of Hawaii showed a strong likelihood of success on their Establishment Clause claim in asserting that Executive Order 13780 was in fact a "Muslim ban". Judge Watson stated in his ruling, "When considered alongside the constitutional injuries and harms discussed above, and the questionable evidence supporting the Government’s national security motivations, the balance of equities and public interests justify granting the Plaintiffs. Nationwide relief is appropriate in light of the likelihood of success on the Establishment Clause claim." He also stated, concerning the Order's neutrality to religion, that the government's position that Courts may not look behind the exercise of executive discretion and must only review the text of the Order was rejected as being legally incorrect,:31-32 and that:
In drawing its conclusion, the Court further quoted the Ninth Circuit appeal ruling on the original Executive Order (13769): "It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims", and quoted in support of its findings, previous rulings that "Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality" (Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah); "a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions" (Larson v. Valente); and that "circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose" (Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing); ending with a comment that "the Supreme Court has been even more emphatic: courts may not 'turn a blind eye to the context in which [a] policy arose' " (McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, ruled that a law becomes unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause if its "ostensible or predominant purpose" is to favor or disfavor any religion over any other).:32 The Court also took into account numerous statements by the President and his team prior to and since election, which had directly stated that he sought a legal means to achieve a total ban on Muslims entering the United States,:33-37 and a "dearth" of substantive evidence in support of the stated security benefits.
After Judge Watson's ruling a Department of Justice spokeswoman said the administration will continue to defend the executive order in the courts. President Donald Trump denounced the ruling as "an unprecedented judicial overreach", and indicated that the decision would be appealed, if necessary to the Supreme Court, stating that, "We're talking about the safety of our nation, the safety and security of our people. This ruling makes us look weak."
Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed a late dissent on March 17, 2017 to the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Washington v. Trump arguing against the State of Washington’s Establishment Clause claims on grounds that Trump’s speech during the campaign was political speech protected by the First Amendment. Even though the Ninth Circuit had declined to address that issue in reaching its ruling on Washington v. Trump and U.S. courts do not typically rule on issues that are not before them, Kozinski argued it was appropriate for him to address the issue because District Judge Watson in Hawaii had cited the Ninth Circuit opinion in reaching its Establishment Clause ruling.
On March 29 Judge Watson extended his order blocking the ban for a longer duration. The DOJ appealed this ruling. On May 15 a panel of the Ninth Circuit will hear arguments on whether to uphold the nationwide injunction.
|Languages spoken||Hawaiian Pidgin|
|Currency used||The dollar or dala was the currency of Hawaii between 1847 and 1898. It was equal to the United States dollar and was divided into 100 cents or keneta|
|Area (km2)||(150 km) across and has a land area of 4,028 square miles (10,430 km2) comprising 62% of the Hawaiian Islands' land area. Measured from its sea floor base|