The Hawai'i Supreme Court today agreed to hear an appeal seeking to invalidate a state law that allowed Hawaii Superferry to begin operation last year without an environmental impact statement.

The court said it was transferring the case from the lower Intermediate Court of Appeals and would schedule oral arguments because it involves a matter "of imperative or fundamental public importance." A date for arguments was not announced.

The Sierra Club, Maui Tomorrow and the Kahului Harbor Coalition requested the transfer as part of their appeal of a Maui Circuit Court ruling in November that upheld the new law known as Act 2.

The last time the three groups were allowed to present oral arguments before the Supreme Court, they won an uncommonly swift judgment that brought a halt to Hawaii Superferry service.

In that August 2007 ruling, the court said the state Department of Transportation violated environmental laws by not conducting a study of the potential impacts of the new interisland ferry and $40 million in ferry-related port improvements.

A subsequent monthlong trial before Maui Circuit Court Judge Joseph Cardoza resulted in an injunction that prevented the state from allowing Hawaii Superferry to use Kahului Harbor until an environmental impact statement could be completed, a process that could have taken several years.

Company officials said the decision would kill the $250 million enterprise, and the Legislature and Gov. Linda Lingle moved quickly to convene a special session that resulted in Act 2, which exempts "large capacity ferry vessels" from the environmental statute known as Chapter 343. The statute requires an environmental review before a project can proceed.

With Act 2 in place, essentially voiding his earlier ruling, Cardoza dissolved the injunction, rejecting arguments that the new law is unconstitutional because it is "special" legislation designed for the sole benefit of Hawaii Superferry.

The three groups appealed, and today's action by the Hawai'i Supreme Court means they will get another chance to argue that Act 2 is unlawful.

For more on this story, see tomorrow's edition of The Advertiser.