Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs were mostly pleased with what they heard at yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court hearing on ceded lands — and relieved at what they didn't hear.

"We're cautiously optimistic," said OHA board Chairwoman Haunani Apoliona.

As important as the ceded lands issue is for Hawaiians, OHA and its supporters feared that yesterday's hearing might result in the justices exploring the larger question of Hawaiians-only programs and funding.

But in an hourlong hearing, justices did not raise the issue of a potential violation of the federal Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment relating to equal protection.

That doesn't mean the high court won't mention Hawaiians-only programs in its majority opinion, but indications were that wasn't going to happen.

Meanwhile, the justices hinted that they may be thinking about sending the ceded lands case back to the Hawai'i Supreme Court, which would please most OHA supporters.

The state, represented by Attorney General Mark Bennett, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Hawai'i Supreme Court ruling that prevents the state from selling ceded lands — the 1.2 million acres that once belonged to the Hawaiian monarchy — until Hawaiian claims to those lands are resolved.

Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, who flew to Washington to attend the oral arguments, said the questioning appears to be good news for OHA because sending the case back to the Hawai'i court could result in a continuation of the ban on the sale of ceded lands.

"I think it's a victory for OHA," she said.

Sherry Broder, an OHA attorney who sat in on yesterday's oral arguments, said "it was quite clear that the justices had done their homework ... and seemed apprised of the history of the Hawaiian people ... and the inequities they had experienced."

Broder said it remains to be seen how the justices will rule.

Hanabusa said she also found it interesting that many of the justices' questions dealt with the state Legislature's ability to manage the lands through new laws.

PRAYERS AND CHANTS

The ceded lands issue has been an emotional one for Hawaiians who held gatherings around the state and in several Mainland cities.

About 300 people supporting OHA's position gathered yesterday at 4 a.m. at the state Capitol for a 12-hour vigil of chants and prayers.

The action was part protest against the Lingle administration, part calling on the kupuna to help them fight the appeal.

A majority of those gathered were members of hula halau or Hawaiian charter schools.

Mapuana de Silva, kumu hula of Halau Mohala Ilima, said she brought about 25 members of her group not just to help the cause, but to teach her students about the historically close relationship between Hawaiians and the land.

A good number of traditional chants speak of the land and love for the land, de Silva said.

"You take the land away and Hawaiians do not have a base," she said.

Daniel Anthony, a 30-year-old subsistence farmer who grows and sells his own taro, also spoke of the close relationship with the land.

"Our big focus right now is sustainability," Anthony said. "To me, if we no more land and no more water, we're not sustainable."

The gathering brought together younger and older Hawaiians.

Shanelle Naone, 21, a University of Hawaii-Manoa communications major, was doing homework between chants. Naone said the reputation students have for being apathetic is being shed, noting that there are many youth-based Hawaiian programs.

"The tide is definitely turning," Naone said.

Retired crane operator Jerome Cox, 71, said most Hawaiians don't want to force non-Hawaiians off the land.

Opponents of Hawaiian programs also found reason to be pleased with the oral arguments before the court.

"We're ... pleased that it appears the Supreme Court will make a broad rather than a narrow decision with regards to issues in the apology," said Richard Rowland, founder of the conservative Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, referring to the U.S. government's apology in 1993 for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i a century earlier.

"We feel that at the heart of this case is the constitutional principle that all citizens should be treated equally under the law, as well as the state's authority to manage public lands for the good of all of its citizens rather than one special racial class," Rowland said.

CASE MAY COME BACK

Several justices, by their questioning, indicated that they were inclined to send the case back to the Hawai'i Supreme Court with the narrow ruling that the state court should not have relied on the 1993 Apology Resolution as its main rationale for deciding to block the sale of ceded lands.

Bennett, the attorney general, said if they do that, the Hawai'i Supreme Court will need to follow the higher court's mandate and reconsider the case.

"The court seem sympathetic to our argument that the Hawai'i Supreme Court based its decision on federal law and ... the Apology Resolution was a symbolic resolution that did not change the law ... and that the Hawai'i Supreme Court improperly relied on it to strip the state of its sovereign authority to transfer its lands and to use and manage the lands and its proceeds for the benefit of all in the state of Hawai'i," Bennett said afterward.

"I'm cautiously optimistic of the result."

Meanwhile, the Hawaiian Independence Action Alliance called a news conference yesterday to proclaim that it does not recognize the actions of any U.S. courts.

Alliance spokeswoman Lynette Cruz said the lands in question were "seized not ceded," making the situation an international rights issue.

The issue should be resolved by an international court or tribunal, Cruz said.