Booking.com B.V. v. Suganuma

Summary

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held that HRS § 91-7's declaratory judgment procedure for challenging the validity of administrative rules extends to tax administrative rules, and that HRS § 632-1's bar on declaratory relief in 'controvers[ies] with respect to taxes' does not apply to a HRS § 91-7 facial challenge to a tax rule. Overruling Hawaii Home Infusion Associates v. Befitel, the court held that HRS § 91-7(a)'s filing provision is optional venue language rather than a subject matter jurisdiction limit, so an out-of-state plaintiff like Booking.com may sue in the circuit where the defendant agency is domiciled. The court further held that Booking.com has standing as an 'interested person' and that the case is not moot (and would in any event fall within the public interest exception). It vacated the ICA and circuit court judgments and remanded for further proceedings.