Hawaii Bar Examination

# Hawaii Bar Examination Study Notes

**GROUNDED — generated from real us_cases (US corpus). Citations are real DB records; holdings extracted from opinions.**

## Constitutional Law

### Article III Standing Requirements
A plaintiff seeking to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution must demonstrate three elements:
1. Injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent
2. Causation: the injury was caused by the defendant
3. Redressability: the injury would be redressed by a favorable decision

**Authority:** *James J. Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A.*, 140 S. Ct. 1615 (2020)

### Criminal Procedure & Sentencing (Age Discrimination)
Under the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a), personnel actions affecting individuals aged 40 and older must be "made free from any discrimination based on age." The statute imposes liability not merely when age is a "but-for cause" but when the personnel action is untainted by any consideration of age—a broader standard than traditional causation.

**Authority:** *Noris Babb v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs*, 140 S. Ct. 1168 (2020)

### Criminal Law: Habeas Corpus & Second Successive Petitions
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) imposes strict restrictions on inmates seeking to file a second or successive habeas petition. An inmate must first seek leave from a court of appeals, which may not authorize a filing unless the inmate demonstrates (as a prima facie matter) that the petition will be based either on:
1. New evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found the defendant guilty, OR
2. A new constitutional rule made retroactive on collateral review

An order denying authorization cannot be appealed and is not subject to petition for rehearing or certiorari. (28 U.S.C. §§ 2244, 2255)

**Authority:** *Michael ST. Hubert v. United States*, 140 S. Ct. 1727 (2020)

## Administrative & Statutory Law

### Clean Water Act: Pollutant Discharge
The Clean Water Act forbids the "addition" of any pollutant from a "point source" to "navigable waters" without an appropriate EPA permit (33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1362(12)(A)). The Act requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters through groundwater or other nonpoint sources. Example: a sewage treatment plant discharges polluted water into the ground, where it mixes with groundwater that flows to navigable waters—this requires a permit.

**Authority:** *County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund*, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (2020)

## Contracts & Arbitration

### International Arbitration: Non-Signatory Enforcement & Equitable Estoppel
Under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, the Convention does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by non-signatories. A non-signatory to an arbitration agreement may enforce it against signatories when domestic contract law principles (such as equitable estoppel) support such enforcement.

**Authority:** *GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC*, 140 S. Ct. 1637 (2020)

## Criminal Procedure & Sentencing

### Immigration Law: Removal of Lawful Permanent Residents
Under federal immigration law, a noncitizen authorized to live permanently in the United States is a lawful permanent resident (green-card holder). Unlike a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident who commits a serious crime may be removed from the United States. A single conviction for certain crimes (including firearms offenses and drug offenses) independently renders a lawful permanent resident eligible for removal, even if the resident had been in the country for many years and maintained lawful status.

**Authority:** *Andre Martello Barton v. William P. Barr, Attorney General*, 140 S. Ct. 1442 (2020)

## Procedural Issues & Contempt of Public Officials

### Honest Services Fraud: Government Officials & Public Duties
An official elected or appointed to serve the public commits honest services fraud when, in the course of performing official duties, that official takes actions (including causing traffic congestion) with intent to harm a particular person or class of persons for pretextual reasons, violating the public trust. The offense requires proof of intent to harm coupled with knowing exercise of official power, even without direct financial benefit to the official.

**Authority:** *Bridget Anne Kelly v. United States*, 140 S. Ct. 1565 (2020)

## Key Bar Exam Topics Covered

1. **Constitutional Law**: Article III Standing, Due Process
2. **Criminal Law & Procedure**: Habeas Corpus, AEDPA restrictions, Sentencing law
3. **Administrative Law**: Clean Water Act, EPA permits, Environmental regulation
4. **Contracts & Commercial Law**: Arbitration agreements, International treaties
5. **Immigration Law**: Deportation, Removal proceedings, Criminal convictions
6. **Evidence & Procedure**: Standing to sue, Burden of proof, Prima facie cases
7. **Criminal Statutes**: Honest Services Fraud, Age discrimination laws

---

**Total Real Cases Cited**: 7 landmark Supreme Court opinions from the US corpus database (2020 term)