Lawyers for a non-Native Hawaiian student are urging the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to deny Kamehameha Schools' request for a rehearing on the court's 2-1 decision declaring the school admission policy a violation of federal civil rights law.

They contend the decision issued Aug. 2 applied established principals of law and a rehearing is not necessary.

The 10-page brief was sent to the 9th Circuit's headquarters in San Francisco to be filed today. The filing will trigger a two-week deadline for the appeals court to indicate whether a vote will be taken on the rehearing.

A majority of the appeals judges voting would be necessary for a rehearing by a larger panel of 11 appeals court judges. That rehearing process traditionally takes months or longer than a year.

Sacramento lawyer Eric Grant, one of the unnamed student's lawyers, yesterday said he expects a vote will be taken since it only requires one judge to call for one and typically, the dissenting judge in a 2-1 decision will call for the poll.

The more interesting issue is the outcome of the vote, which he hopes will be sometime next month, Grant said.

The court's decision held that the private school's admission policy is an "absolute bar" to non-Native Hawaiian applicants. The ruling caused an uproar among school supporters who believe the nearly 120-year-old practice is necessary to address social, economic and educational disadvantages among Native Hawaiians.

The school asked for the "en banc" rehearing, calling the decision "unprecedented."

About a dozen organizations, including the state attorney general's office and Hawai'i's congressional delegation, filed friends-of-the-court briefs supporting the school's request.

In their brief, the student's lawyers argue that despite the school's "rhetoric," the case involves "no dramatic or unusual conclusion of law."

The school's policy, they contend, "is one of categorical racial segregation."

The lawyers said the Supreme Court's Rice v. Cayetano decision in 2000 that struck the Hawaiians-only voting restriction for Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees rejects the school's contention that its policy is justified.

They also cited the 9th Circuit's ruling Aug. 31 that reinstated part of a lawsuit by taxpayers challenging state tax money to OHA as unconstitutional because the agency provides benefits only to residents of Hawaiian blood.

Appeals court judges Jay Bybee and Robert Beezer represented the majority in the 2-1 decision. Appeals Judge Susan Graber dissented.

Reach Ken Kobayashi at kkobayashi@honoluluadvertiser.com.