The U.S. Supreme Court case Hawaii et al. v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs et al., 2008, centered around a dispute over the sale and transfer of certain public lands in Hawaii that were formerly owned by the federal government but had been transferred to the state upon its admission into the Union in 1959. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) argued that these lands could not be sold or transferred until claims relating to them by native Hawaiians had been resolved, based on an apology resolution issued by Congress in 1993 acknowledging past wrongs against native Hawaiians during annexation process. However, the State of Hawaii contended it held absolute title to these lands without any accompanying trust obligations towards Native Hawaiians as claimed by OHA under said apology resolution. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hawaii stating that while Congress's Apology Resolution expressed regret for historical events but did not strip Hawaii off its sovereign authority to sell or transfer aforementioned public land as per Admission Act terms.

In the dissenting opinion for Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the Apology Resolution passed by Congress in 1993. He contended that this resolution did not change Hawaii's title to its lands and thus should not impact any claims made by native Hawaiians. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for ignoring important historical context surrounding U.S.' annexation of Hawaii and subsequent treatment of native Hawaiians. In his view, these factors were crucial in understanding why Congress issued an apology and what it intended with this gesture - namely acknowledging past wrongs without necessarily providing legal remedies or altering property rights.