Should the lawsuit for Hawaii's full voter list be dismissed?
Nago and the NAACP moved to dismiss and the United States opposed. The hearing was called off and the motions are on hold while the case is stayed.
Nago and the NAACP ask the court to dismiss the case
Nago argued the demand gave no basis and an improper purpose and broke state and federal privacy laws. The NAACP filed its own motion.
The court set briefing and an April 3, 2026 hearing on both motions.
The government filed one opposition to both motions, defending its demand under the 1960 Civil Rights Act.
Because Nago had asked to pause the case, the court vacated the hearing and briefing schedule, then stayed the case.
Next step: New schedule after the stay is lifted
Should the case pause until the Ninth Circuit decides similar appeals?Yes, on the second request: case paused ·
The court denied Nago's first request as premature, then granted a renewed one in April 2026 after the related appeals were docketed and expedited.
Nago asks to pause the case for appeals in similar cases
Nago asked to pause the case pending expected Ninth Circuit appeals in the California (Weber) and Oregon cases.
The court called the timing of those appeals speculative, denied the stay without prejudice, and ordered Nago to respond to the complaint.
Nago renews his request to pause the case
Nago noted both appeals had been docketed and argued their outcome would likely decide many issues here.
The government argued a pause would frustrate its effort to make sure Hawaii follows federal voter-roll rules.
Nago replied that both appeals had been expedited and set for argument on May 19, 2026.
The court stayed the case until the Ninth Circuit rules, finding the harm to the government speculative and the appeals likely to simplify the issues.
Should the court order Nago to produce Hawaii's voter list?Withdrawn ·
The government asked for an order compelling the records the day it sued. The court never set briefing and, once the case was stayed, deemed the motion withdrawn.
The United States asks the court to compel production of the records
The government asked for an order making Nago hand over the voter list, and later pointed to a similar Connecticut order.
The court said it would not set a hearing or briefing until the government proved it had served Nago.
Because of the stay, the court treated the motion as withdrawn, leaving room for a summary judgment motion later.
May Common Cause, Abercrombie, and Hammes file a friend-of-the-court brief?Yes: brief allowed ·
The United States first objected, then dropped its opposition, and the court granted leave in March 2026.
Common Cause, Abercrombie, and Hammes ask to file an amicus brief
After intervention was denied, the group asked to file an amicus brief; Nago consented and the NAACP took no position.
Told the government objected, the court directed it to file a position statement.
The government filed a notice of no opposition.
The court granted the motion, and the group filed its amicus brief.
May Common Cause, Neil Abercrombie, and Katherine Hammes join as defendants?No: intervention denied ·
The court rejected the parties' stipulation and denied intervention in February 2026, leaving the group free to seek amicus status instead.
Common Cause and two Hawaii residents ask to join the case
Common Cause, former governor Neil Abercrombie, and Katherine Hammes asked to join as defendants, attaching a proposed motion to dismiss.
The court told the parties to confer and either submit a stipulation or file notice of opposition.
The movants filed a stipulation about the motion to intervene.
The court rejected the stipulation and denied the motion, without prejudice to asking to file an amicus brief.
May the NAACP California-Hawaii State Conference join as a defendant?Yes: intervention granted ·
The United States took no position, and the court let the NAACP conference intervene as a defendant in January 2026.
The NAACP California-Hawaii State Conference asks to join the case
The NAACP conference asked to join the case as a defendant.
The government filed a notice taking no position on the request.
Treating the motion as unopposed, the court allowed permissive intervention and the NAACP filed its answer.