A native Hawaiian family asserted its right to exclusively use and occupy the `Ai'opio fish trap located within the Kaloko-HonokohauNationalHistoricPark. The district court granted summary judgment for the United States. The Ninth Circuit wrote this opinion affirming the district court to clarify its decision in light of Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. HawaiiCounty Planning Commission (PASH II).[1]

The appellant `Ohana relied heavily on the PASH II reasoning at oral argument. The family claimed Hawaiian common law gives legal protection to "the use and occupation of land according to ancient custom." PASH II reiterated a well-established tenet of Hawaiian property law that customary and traditional rights were not destroyed when Hawaii joined the United States. However, PASH II did not involve a claim for exclusive use and possession. The Ninth Circuit construed native tenants' rights very narrowly, stating "[a]ncient custom did not include the right to remain upon and exclude others from the land."

Because the court found the appellant's position unsupported by law, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment for the United States.