A plain-language guide to the federal “Apology Resolution” and its specific acknowledgments

Public Law 103-150 is frequently referenced in discussions about Hawaiian sovereignty. It is also frequently mischaracterized—by both supporters and critics. This article examines what the law actually says, in its own words.

Basic Facts About the Law

Official title: Joint Resolution to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi.

Common names: The Apology Resolution, the Apology Bill, PL 103-150

When passed: November 23, 1993

Signed by: President Bill Clinton

Where to find it: The full text is available at GovInfo.gov (107 Stat. 1510)

The Structure of the Law

Public Law 103-150 consists of three parts:

  1. Thirty-seven “Whereas” clauses establishing historical facts
  2. A formal apology to Native Hawaiians
  3. A “disclaimer” clause about property claims

Each part deserves examination.

The Historical Findings (Whereas Clauses)

The law begins with 37 paragraphs, each beginning with “Whereas,” that establish historical facts as matters of federal record. These are not opinions or interpretations—they are findings incorporated into federal law.

On Hawaiian Independence Before 1893

“Whereas, prior to the arrival of the first Europeans in 1778, the Native Hawaiian people lived in a highly organized, self-sufficient, subsistent social system based on communal land tenure with a sophisticated language, culture, and religion…”

“Whereas, from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887…”

The law establishes that Hawaiʻi was an independent, recognized nation—not merely an unclaimed territory.

On the Events of January 1893

The law describes what happened during the overthrow in specific terms:

“Whereas, on January 14, 1893, John L. Stevens, the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaiʻi…”

“Whereas, in pursuance of the conspiracy, the United States Minister and the naval representative of the United States caused armed naval forces of the United States to invade the sovereign Hawaiian nation on January 16, 1893, and to position themselves near the Hawaiian Government buildings and the Iolani Palace to intimidate Queen Liliuokalani and her Government…”

“Whereas, on the afternoon of January 17, 1893, a Committee of Safety that represented the American and European sugar planters, descendants of missionaries, and financiers deposed the Hawaiian monarchy and proclaimed the establishment of a Provisional Government…”

Note the specific language: “conspired,” “invade,” “intimidate.” These are the U.S. Congress’s own characterizations of the events.

On the Lack of Hawaiian Consent

Perhaps the most significant finding:

“Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum…”

This single sentence acknowledges that:

  • Native Hawaiians had “inherent sovereignty”
  • They had sovereignty “over their national lands”
  • They “never directly relinquished” these claims
  • This applies whether measured through the monarchy or through popular vote

On the Kūʻē Petitions

“Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people expressed their overwhelming opposition to the annexation through their signatures to two petitions—one in opposition to annexation and one in support of restoring the monarchy…”

The Apology

Following the historical findings, the law contains the formal apology:

“The Congress—

(1) on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi on January 17, 1893, acknowledges the historical significance of this event which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people;

(2) recognizes and commends efforts of reconciliation initiated by the State of Hawaiʻi and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians;

(3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;

(4) expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people; and

(5) urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.”

Note the specific phrases:

  • “illegal overthrow”
  • “suppression of the inherent sovereignty”
  • “deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination”
  • “reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people”

The Disclaimer Clause

Section 3 of the law contains language that has been central to legal disputes:

“Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.”

This clause has been interpreted by courts to mean that the resolution does not create enforceable legal rights or provide a basis for lawsuits against the United States for compensation or the return of lands.

Critics of sovereignty efforts have sometimes characterized this clause as meaning the resolution has no legal significance. But the disclaimer addresses legal claims against the United States—it does not undo the historical findings or the apology itself.

The findings remain federal law. The acknowledgment that Native Hawaiians “never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty” remains federal law.

What the Law Does and Doesn’t Do

What PL 103-150 Does

  • Establishes historical facts as matters of federal record
  • Characterizes the overthrow as “illegal”
  • Acknowledges that Native Hawaiians “never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty”
  • Formally apologizes on behalf of the United States
  • Urges reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people

What PL 103-150 Does Not Do

  • Create enforceable legal claims against the United States
  • Return lands or provide compensation
  • Restore the Hawaiian Kingdom or recognize any sovereignty organization
  • Specify what “reconciliation” should look like

How Courts Have Interpreted the Law

Several court cases have addressed PL 103-150:

Rice v. Cayetano (2000): The U.S. Supreme Court cited the resolution but did not rule on its legal effect regarding sovereignty.

Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs (2009): The Supreme Court held that the Apology Resolution did not change federal or state law regarding land ownership or limit the state’s authority over public lands. However, the Court did not dispute the historical findings in the resolution.

Courts have generally held that the resolution is an apology and historical acknowledgment, not a source of enforceable legal rights. But this does not make the historical findings untrue or legally insignificant—it means they do not, by themselves, create claims that can be adjudicated in U.S. courts.

Common Mischaracterizations

“It’s just symbolic”

The resolution is more than symbolic—it establishes historical facts as federal law. The acknowledgment that Native Hawaiians “never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty” is not a symbolic statement. It is a congressional finding with legal weight, even if it does not create an enforceable claim.

“It restores Hawaiian sovereignty”

The resolution does not restore sovereignty or recognize any sovereignty organization. It acknowledges historical facts and apologizes. What follows from those acknowledgments remains unresolved.

“The disclaimer negates everything else”

The disclaimer prevents the resolution from being used as a basis for lawsuits against the United States. It does not retract the historical findings or the apology. The findings and apology remain law.

“It was just for the 100th anniversary”

While passed on the centennial, the law’s findings are permanent. Federal law does not expire because an anniversary passes.

Why This Matters

Public Law 103-150 represents the United States government’s own examination of the historical record, conducted a century after the events in question. It is not a document produced by sovereignty advocates—it was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the President.

The resolution acknowledges:

  • Hawaiʻi was an independent nation
  • The overthrow involved conspiracy by a U.S. official
  • U.S. forces were used to intimidate the Queen
  • Native Hawaiians never consented to losing their sovereignty
  • The United States apologizes for these actions
  • Reconciliation is needed

These acknowledgments frame any discussion of Hawaiian sovereignty. They establish that questioning Hawaiʻi’s legal status is not a fringe position—it is consistent with the U.S. government’s own findings.

What those findings mean, and what reconciliation should look like, remains the open question.

Read It Yourself

The full text of Public Law 103-150 is available online through the Government Publishing Office:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg1510.pdf

Reading the primary source—rather than summaries or characterizations—is the best way to understand what the law actually says.

Note: Some quotations in this article have been excerpted for clarity. The full text is available at the link above.

,