In a unanimous opinion Thursday, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court said Gov. Josh Green overstepped his powers early on in his administration two years ago when he suspended dozens of laws under a series of sweeping emergency proclamations intended to spur housing development.

Those proclamations had met previous court challenges from groups worried that the measures would trample environmental protections and procurement laws intended to keep an even playing field among contractors. Green later rolled back some of the provisions of those early proclamations to focus specifically on affordable housing.

Both the plaintiffs and the state’s lawyers hailed the high court’s decision for keeping the governor’s emergency powers focused on building affordable housing units.

State law gives the governor broad powers to suspend most laws in the event of a disaster. Emergency powers have been invoked by governors throughout state history to deal with events like hurricanes, wildfires and the Covid-19 pandemic.

But critics have raised questions over the use of emergency powers in other situations such as for addressing the state’s housing shortage, its homeless problem, and in the latter days of the pandemic after infectious cases had reached manageable levels.

Now, the state Supreme Court has a two-part test for whether an emergency proclamation is legitimate: Is the proclamation “related to the health, safety, and welfare of the public” and is it “reasonably necessary” to address whatever emergency it’s dealing with?

In this case, the court said the current emergency proclamation for housing that the state is under — the 15th iteration since Green took office — is legal. But the first five, covering most of 2023, “exceed the governor’s emergency powers,” Associate Justice Todd Eddins wrote in the unanimous opinion published Thursday.

Those were related to the public’s health and welfare, Eddins wrote, “But the executive action taken was not reasonably necessary to address the declared emergency. The early proclamations opened project certification to all housing projects, not just affordable housing.”

The lawsuit behind the decision came from residents of Oʻahu, Maui and Kauaʻi. It challenged the first six of Green’s housing proclamations.

Policy experts and attorneys for the plaintiffs said they believe this is the first time the state’s highest court has set limits on the governor’s emergency powers.

“This is a victory for everyone in Hawaiʻi,” Lance Collins, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an email.

Leonard Nakoa, one of the plaintiffs, said in a written statement that the court ruling “ensures that emergency powers are exercised responsibly and that urgent issues, like affordable housing, are addressed without just handing over the government to private developers.”

The state Attorney General’s office said in a press release that it had “prevailed” against the legal challenges. Deputy Solicitor General Ewan Rayner said the court’s decision affirms the governor’s power to respond to threats.

“The decision recognizes the Governor’s authority to recognize and declare such emergencies, and to take reasonable measures in response,” Rayner said in the press release.

In a written statement, Green said Hawaiʻi needs more affordable housing to reduce the state’s cost of living and promised to “break down obstacles that can impede affordable housing development.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision is another step forward as we continue this crucial work for the people of Hawaiʻi,” Green said.

Malia Hill — policy director for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaiʻi, a conservative-leaning thinktank — doesn’t think emergency powers should be the tool for breaking down those obstacles. Cutting through red tape should instead come from the Legislature and county councils.

“To a certain degree, emergency powers let them avoid responsibility,” Hill said of lawmakers.

The sweeping suspensions of laws taken by past governors also largely excluded the public, Hill said, even if they did lead to desired outcomes. A better solution is to go through the lawmaking process that allows the public to weigh in on issues.

Hill said that could lead to more permanent change, unlike the emergency proclamations that are by their nature temporary.

“Emergency statutes weren’t created to deal with the fact that you built up a bureaucracy that makes it hard to address anything,” Hill said.

Read the full opinion here.