Act 11 | Hawaii’s Latest Attack on Free Speech.

Abbra Green
6 minutes ago
6 min read

On May 14, 2026, Governor Josh Green signed Senate Bill 2471 into law as Act 11. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii stands firmly behind the federal lawsuit filed by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii to strike it down.

What Act 11 Does

Act 11 prohibits incorporated organizations from engaging in what the law terms "election activity" and "ballot-issue activity." Those categories are defined so broadly that spending money to speak for or against a candidate, a ballot measure, or a political party is now forbidden for virtually every incorporated group in Hawaii.

That means nonprofits, trade associations, civic leagues, charities, labor unions, and advocacy organizations of every political stripe are now legally barred from participating in the very elections that shape the laws they are required to abide by. The law takes effect July 1, 2027, unless a court stops it first.

The institutional press, newspapers, broadcasters, and periodicals are exempt and get to keep speaking freely. Everyone else gets silenced. I will return to that glaring double standard shortly.

The Grassroot Institute Lawsuit

On June 5, 2026, the Institute for Free Speech filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in U.S. District Court. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii v. Lopez, et al seeks declaratory relief establishing that Act 11 is unconstitutional, and injunctive relief blocking its enforcement before it takes effect on July 1, 2027.

The lawsuit argues that Act 11 violates the First Amendment’s protections of free speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, and freedom of petition and assembly. Every one of those arguments is correct.

Keliʻi Akina, President and CEO of the Grassroot Institute, put it plainly:

This law doesn’t affect just the Grassroot Institute. It affects every Hawaii resident who wants to join with others to speak out on issues that impact their community.

He is right. It affects unions, homeowner associations, cultural preservation groups, and tenants’ rights coalitions. Act 11 does not care what causes you support. If you are incorporated and you spend money to speak about a ballot measure or a candidate, even in a small way, you are in violation.

A Shocking “Definition”

Most of the press coverage has focused on the campaign finance angle. What has received far less attention is a foundational provision buried in the bill’s statutory amendments. This is the language that shocked me:

(a) The creation and continued existence of a corporation shall not be deemed a right but shall be a conditional grant of legal status by the State and shall remain subject to complete withdrawal at any time. All powers granted to corporations under the laws of the State before January 1, 2027, shall be revoked in their entirety. Beginning January 1, 2027, a corporation operating under the jurisdiction of the State shall possess no power unless specifically granted by this section.

In other words, your organization’s legal existence is not a right. It is a conditional grant. The State can withdraw it. At any time.

And as of January 1, 2027, every power an organization currently holds is revoked. All of it. Gone by default. The only powers you get back are the ones the State specifically hands you.

This is an outrageous declaration of state supremacy over civil society. It converts every incorporated organization in Hawaii into a conditional tenant of the government’s goodwill. The moment you say something the State disapproves of, your legal existence becomes negotiable. When the government can revoke the very legal existence of an organization for political speech, you no longer have free speech, you have government-licensed speech.

The Top 5 Infringing Elements of Act 11

Corporate Existence Defined as Government License

As highlighted above, the statutory language reframes every incorporated organization’s existence as a conditional privilege subject to state withdrawal at any time. This is the philosophical foundation of the entire law. The State can revoke your existence for speech it disapproves of, turning the First Amendment a mere suggestion.

Total Speech Ban on Incorporated Organizations

Act 11 makes it so that any spending that directly or indirectly supports or opposes a candidate is prohibited. The Grassroot Institute, which publishes policy research about legislation and regularly names elected officials in its analysis, could be deemed in violation simply for doing its job.

The Institute for Free Speech, which filed the lawsuit on Grassroot’s behalf, notes that existing Hawaii campaign finance law already requires registration and disclosure for independent expenditures. Act 11 goes far beyond that and eliminates the right to spend on political speech entirely.

Vague Definitions

The law prohibits spending to "directly or indirectly" support or oppose a candidate. That phrase is broad and vague. A policy brief that criticizes a sitting legislator’s vote on housing reform could be "indirect" opposition to that candidate. A public forum where a speaker questions a county council member’s record could qualify. Organizations are left to guess where lawful advocacy ends and a criminal violation begins. Vague laws invite selective enforcement.

Dissolution to Penalize Protected Speech

Act 11 establishes an escalating penalty structure: suspension of operating authority, revocation of tax exemptions, and ultimately involuntary dissolution. A labor union, a civil rights nonprofit, a libertarian think tank, or a local business association could be forcibly shut down by the State of Hawaii for exercising speech rights that the First Amendment explicitly protects. It is a state-ordered death sentence for any organization that dares to speak.

A Government-Approved Press "Exemption"

The Act carves out an explicit exemption for "institutional press entities" including newspapers, broadcasters, and periodicals. They may continue to speak freely about candidates and elections. Everyone else cannot.

The First Amendment does not create a favored class of speakers. The government does not get to decide which voices are legitimate and which ones must be silenced. A well-funded media outlet with a printing press can endorse a candidate, but grassroots advocacy groups can’t send a single email? The State has clearly dictated its preferred megaphones as they muzzle everyone else.

Even the Attorney General Said No

As the legislature debated the bill, Hawaii Attorney General Ann Lopez repeatedly warned lawmakers that Act 11 would likely conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court precedent. She warned that it could constitute an unconstitutional content-based speech restriction. She warned that it would expose Hawaii taxpayers to substantial litigation costs defending a law that, in her words, is "likely impossible to defend."

The legislature passed it anyway. 25 to 0 in the Senate. 49 to 1 in the House. Governor Green signed it. When your own attorney general tells you a bill is constitutionally indefensible and you pass it unanimously anyway, it becomes nothing more than a political statement at the public’s expense. Hawaii taxpayers will unfortunately foot the bill for this lawsuit in order to claw back their own inherent rights.

A Red Herring Argument

Supporters of Act 11 frame it as a response to Citizens United and argue the State can limit powers because it created them. The argument falls apart on contact with reality. Is the State the arbiter of corporate legitimacy?

The First Amendment does not protect corporations as abstract entities. It protects the people inside them. When the State silences the Grassroot Institute, it is silencing every individual who joined that organization to collectively advocate for their shared beliefs. Stripping the vehicle of its speech rights has the same practical result as silencing its passengers. The legislature’s own committee report acknowledged this, noting that "the individual remains fully free to speak." So, the people of Hawaii can still have an opinion as long as they never pool resources to be heard?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of association means nothing if the State can neuter the associations you form. People join organizations precisely because collective voices carry farther. That is the point of the First Amendment.

What Comes Next

The lawsuit is pending in federal district court. The key dates are:

June 5, 2026: Federal lawsuit filed by Institute for Free Speech on behalf of Grassroot Institute
July 1, 2027: Act 11 scheduled to take effect

A court injunction before that date is the goal of the litigation. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii will be watching this case closely. Free speech is the very foundation of every other right. When the government starts deciding which organizations get to speak and which ones get dissolved for speaking, no one is safe.