Cruise Lines International Association, Inc. v. Suganuma

Both the U.S. and the private plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit and filed emergency motions for injunctive relief. On December 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted the motions and enjoined enforcement of Act 96 pending resolution of the appeals.

On December 23, 2025, the federal district court for the District of Hawaii denied motions by cruise industry and local business plaintiffs and by the United States for a preliminary injunction blocking a Hawai‘i law imposing a “climate impact fee” on cruise ship operators. The law—Act 96—extends the State’s transient accommodations tax to cruise ships and also imposes registration and notice requirements. It was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026. In its December 23 decision on preliminary injunction motions filed by the U.S. and by the private plaintiffs and on a motion to dismiss the private plaintiffs’ complaint, the court first concluded that both plaintiff Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)—which is an organization whose members include cruise line brands representing 95% of global cruise capacity—and local business plaintiffs challenging the law had constitutional standing but that the local businesses asserted the rights of third parties and therefore did not have prudential standing. The court also concluded that the United States had standing to bring suit to protect its interest in federal supremacy over interstate maritime commerce. Second, the court concluded that because state mechanisms existed for challenging Act 96’s state tax and county surcharges, the court lacked jurisdiction over CLIA’s claims regarding these provisions under the Tax Injunction Act, though the court concluded that it could retain jurisdiction over CLIA’s challenges to Act 96’s registration fee and notice requirements. The court concluded, however, that the Tax Injunction Act did not bar the U.S. claims. Third, the court denied the state defendants’ motion to dismiss the challenges to the registration fee and notice requirements but dismissed the claims against the county defendants, finding that CLIA did not establish that they had anything to do with the registration fee or notice requirements. Regarding the preliminary injunction motions, the court said it could not conclude that CLIA or the federal government were likely to succeed on the merits despite “serious questions” as to whether Act 96’s state tax, county surcharges, and registration fee violate the Constitution’s Tonnage Clause or are preempted by the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1884. The court also found that CLIA did not establish a likelihood of success on its First Amendment challenge to Act 96’s notice requirements because the challenge was based on the underlying constitutionality of the tax, surcharges, and fee.

On December 4, the court granted the United States’ motion to intervene, finding that the government satisfied the conditions for permissive intervention.