The Hawaii Superferry said it will cease operations on Thursday following a ruling today by the Hawaii Supreme Court that went against the inter-island ferry service.

The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled this morning that a state law allowing Hawaii Superferry to operate without a complete environmental impact statement is unconstitutional.

Superferry said in a statement late today that "Obviously we are hugely disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision that Act 2 is unconstitutional. We have operated on a regular, reliable and responsible basis for the past 11 months. During this time over 250,000 people have booked travel on Alakai and it has provided new economic

opportunities for Hawaii's businesses.

"While the appeal is not yet final because a judgment on appeal has not been

entered, we want to proceed prudently and have decided to cease operations

for the present.

"Our first priority is to take care of our customers, both those who have

recently traveled and need to return to either Oahu or Maui and those who

have future bookings. We will make one additional round trip to get

vehicles back to their homes this Thursday."

The company said it is in the process of calling all customers with near term bookings.

Customers may also call 1-877-443-3779 or 1-808-853-4007 for immediate

service.

The law was passed in a special session in November 2007 and allowed the Superferry to resume operations between Oahu and Maui in December 2007.

The Supreme Court said the law, known as Act 2, was written for the benefit of just one company, Hawaii Superferry, and therefore unconstitutional.

"Realistically, Act 2 was conceived, drafted, and enacted to accomplish the specific purpose of allowing the Superferry, and the Superferry alone, to operate without satisfying the requirements of Chapter 343 of the Hawaii statues. By its own repealing language, once this purpose was accomplished, Act 2 will die before it can accomplish a like purpose for any other entity."

The court held that the limitation on legislative power to general laws in the state Constitution is to protect against the dangers of special legislation.

"That our Constitution prohibits laws which provide disparate treatment intended to favor a specific individual, class, or entity or to discriminate against a specific individual, class, or entity is a fundamental principle of the democratic nature of government: equal rights and treatment for all persons under the law," the court concluded.

Superferry officials had no immediate comment, but said they would be speaking to media later today.

The court found that the state's environmental review law, Chapter 343, is applicable to Superferry. The court sent the case back to Maui Circuit Court to solve any remaining claims.

Under the special law that allowed Superferry to operate, a state contractor has completed a draft of an environmental impact statement and was scheduled to finish before the law expired this summer.

The environmental review is similar, but not identical, to the requirements of the state's primary environmental review law in Chapter 343.

It was not immediately clear whether a new environmental review would have to be performed or whether the state and Superferry could use the work that has already been completed.

Irene Bowie, executive director of Maui Tomorrow, one of the environmental groups that brought the legal challenge, said the groups would wait to see how Superferry responds.

"We would like to think that they are going to stop operations now that Act 2 has been deemed unconstitutional," she said. "If they don't, then I think the next step for us would be to seek an injunction."

Dick Mayer, a retired professor on Maui who has been critical of Superferry, said he was delighted with the court's ruling.

"It shows the public can stand up against what really is a combination of the state and a private business enterprise and prevail," he said. "I think that's very important. It gives the public access to the judicial system and can come out with a ruling that doesn't necessarily favor the state."

State Sen. J. Kalani English, D-6th (E. Maui, Molokai, Lanai), one of fiive senators to vote against the law, said he warned at the time it was unconstitutional special legislation.

The law referred to a "large capacity ferry vessel" instead of Superferry, but it was clear that it was written for Superferry, he said.

"We simply masked the idea of what the Superferry is by calling it by this generic name," English said.

The court found that the law was an unconstitutional special law in violation of Article XI, Section 5 of the state Constitution.

The section reads: The legislative power over the lands owned by or under the control of the state and its political subdivisions shall be exercised only by general laws, except in respect to transfers to or for the use of the state, or a political subdivision, or any department or agency thereof.

English said the Superferry could have avoided the situation if it agreed to an environmental impact statement at the start of the process.

"It goes back to what we said from the beginning. We told the Superferry, `Simply follow the law,' " he said. "If they did that, none of this would have happened."

State Senate Majority Leader Gary Hooser, D-7th (Kauai, Niihau), who also voted against the law, said he blames the Lingle administration for exempting the project from environmental review.

"It's unfortunate that we are still involved in this controversy," Hooser said. "It's unfortunate the Lingle administration mishandled it in the beginning, which I believe led us down this path."

Hooser said the experience is "clearly bad for business. It's bad for Hawaii's image. But I lay the full responsibility on the Lingle administration and the decisions they made in allowing Superferry to bypass (the environmental review law) in the first place."

State Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, D-21st (Nanakuli, Makaha), said the court ruling could influence how the Legislature drafts laws that clearly are meant to respond to specific places or events.

"I'm concerned that we are not going to be able to craft laws maybe as deliberately as we have in the past. I think that's an issue," she said.

Hanabusa also wondered about the loss of the provision in the law that prevents Superferry from suing the state for past decisions involving the environmental review.