The actual legal issues in question are barely touched on in the article:
> But some environmentalists and Native Hawaiian groups say the spread of observatories on the summit has polluted the mountain, interfering with traditional cultural and religious practices, or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom.
The links in the article to the actual decisions are broken (for me at least) The article https://bigislandnow.com/2018/08/08/supreme-court-rules-in-f... implies that the issues were largely procedural and this decision isn't actually deciding if any of the above are true.
So I'm left seeing big claims, but no real idea on if those claims are true-but-ignored, mostly-not-true, or a fringe-group-only-viewpoint. (While the media coverage IMPLIES that those claims ARE decided, and it's that implication that bugs me)
> But some environmentalists and Native Hawaiian groups say the spread of observatories on the summit has polluted the mountain, interfering with traditional cultural and religious practices, or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom.
The links in the article to the actual decisions are broken (for me at least) The article https://bigislandnow.com/2018/08/08/supreme-court-rules-in-f... implies that the issues were largely procedural and this decision isn't actually deciding if any of the above are true.
So I'm left seeing big claims, but no real idea on if those claims are true-but-ignored, mostly-not-true, or a fringe-group-only-viewpoint. (While the media coverage IMPLIES that those claims ARE decided, and it's that implication that bugs me)