The Hawaii Supreme Court issued an opinion overturning the 1990 rape conviction of Daniel Granillo and ordering a new trial after concluding that discredited FBI hair-and-fiber testimony deprived him of a fair trial.

Although the case centered on forensic evidence, the ruling attracted national attention because Justice Todd Eddins included an unusually forceful critique of the U.S.Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Roberts.

In the opinion, Eddins argued that the Roberts Court has adopted an interpretation of the Constitution that fails to adequately recognize the effects of racial discrimination.He asserted that the Court's recent decisions, including its ruling in Louisiana v.Callais involving the Voting Rights Act, demonstrate an approach that minimizes or overlooks racism.

The opinion also rejected the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment is inherently colorblind, arguing instead that its historical purpose was to address racial inequality.

Beyond race-related issues, Eddins criticized Supreme Court decisions concerning campaign finance, claiming they have increased the political influence of wealthy donors, and condemned the Court's presidential immunity ruling, arguing that it placed the president above the law.

He concluded that Hawaii's courts are free to interpret the state constitution independently rather than relying on what he described as the Roberts Court's jurisprudence.

The ruling is notable not only for granting Granillo a new trial based on unreliable forensic evidence but also for its rare and direct criticism of the U.S.Supreme Court's recent constitutional decisions and judicial philosophy.