The Lingle administration believes the state Supreme Court was in error last month when it found that a law that allowed Hawaii Superferry to operate during an environmental review was unconstitutional, arguing the state Legislature did not exercise power over state lands and did not craft a special law that excluded all but the Superferry.

In a motion for reconsideration filed with the court yesterday, the administration argues the Legislature was acting in a legitimate public interest to provide interisland ferry service to the people of Hawai'i.

The motion contends an operating agreement that allowed the Superferry to use state land at Kahului Harbor on Maui was with the Lingle administration, not the Legislature, so lawmakers did not exercise power over state lands when they referred to the operating agreement in the law. The state Constitution limits the Legislature to passing only general laws regarding state lands.

The motion also claims the law, known as Act 2, was a general law that could have applied to other ferry companies, not a special law written solely for the Superferry. The state argues the law was consistent with a Supreme Court ruling in 1967 that upheld a law tailored for Maui calling for a special election to replace the chairman of the board of supervisors, who had died after re-election and had not begun his new term. The court found that other counties could conceivably benefit.

Instead, the motion contends, the court improperly relied on a legal standard from the Colorado Supreme Court on whether a class created by a law is genuine or illusory.

A class is genuine if it could apply to others in the future, the Colorado court held, and illusory if written for a single interest.

"It is not fair to the Legislature (or to the Circuit Court) for this court to invalidate Act 2 because this court now suddenly prefers maverick Colorado law," wrote Dorothy Sellers, the state solicitor general, in the state's motion.

The Supreme Court's ruling last month prompted the Superferry to cease operations and take its catamaran, the Alakai, out of Hawai'i. The company is looking for lease options for the Alakai and a second catamaran.

But company officials have said they may return once an environmental review is completed and the legal cloud is lifted. The state is now conducting a review under the state's primary environmental review law rather than Act 2.

State lawmakers plan to file a friend-of-the-court brief to the state's motion asking the court to clarify the potential effect of its ruling on legislative power. Lawmakers want the court to expand on the breadth of the general law provision in the state Constitution, the constitutionality of repeal or "sunset" clauses in legislation, and the proper application of severability clauses in legislation.

The Lingle administration also raised the issue of severability in its motion, asking why the court did not strike down the portions of the law it found unconstitutional and leave the rest intact.

Isaac Hall, the Wailuku attorney who represents the environmental groups that brought the legal challenge to the law, said the state's motion basically makes arguments that were or should have been made with the court when the case was being heard.

"It appears to be a rehashing of what actually was argued in briefs or could and should have been argued before the Supreme Court," Hall said.

"There isn't anything new."