In the supreme court's words, here is a summary of the issue on appeal:
Sierra Club appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment arguing that: (1) Act 2 is unconstitutional, (2) the injunction should not have been dissolved, and (3) Sierra Club and the public are entitled to an environmental assessment and environmental impact statement pursuant to HRS chapter 343 for the Hawaii Superferry project. Sierra Club also appeals and cross-appeals from the circuit court’s order granting its motion for reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs, arguing that the circuit court erred in limiting the hourly rate for reimbursement of attorney’s fees to $200 and declining to award attorney’s fees and costs incurred at trial prior to the initial appeal to this court.
The Department cross-appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment to the extent that it supports or purports to support an award of attorney’s fees and costs against the Department. Superferry cross-appeals from five circuit court orders, rulings, and judgment. Both the Department and Superferry appeal separately from the circuit court order granting Sierra Club reasonable attorney’s fees and costs against the Department and Superferry based on HRS § 607-25 and the private attorney general doctrine.Read history and past commentary about the case at Hawaii Superferry. Oral argument from the Superferry's first appearance at the supreme court (August 23, 2007) is online at the court's Oral Arguments Recordings Archive.