WASHINGTON — It's now in the hands of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Having heard the arguments yesterday, the high court is expected to rule in June on whether the state has the right to sell or transfer any of the 1.2 million acres of former Hawaiian monarchy lands it manages.

The case pits the state against the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

The Hawai'i Supreme Court ruled last year the state could not sell the land, known as ceded lands, until Native Hawaiian claims of ownership are resolved. The Hawai'i court opinion was based in large part on a 1993 congressional resolution apologizing for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i in 1893 and related state legislation.

Hawai'i Attorney General Mark Bennett asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Hawai'i court decision. He stressed two points. First, the resolution marking the 100th anniversary of the overthrow was an apology that did not change who had proper title to the lands in question.

"It was, as the sponsor said at the time, a simple apology, and no more," Bennett said.

But he also urged the court to go a step further and confirm the state's sovereign authority over the land. Several justices voiced a reluctance to do so.

"Why is it necessary? Why isn't it sufficient just to say that this resolution has no substantive effect, period?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Kannon K. Shanmugam, who represented the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, discounted the apology resolution's effect on the state court's decision.

The state court made clear that it was relying on the apology resolution only for the acknowledgment that Native Hawaiians had unresolved claims, he said.

Ginsburg didn't seem to agree, though.

She said the Hawai'i Supreme Court stated that its decision was "dictated by" the apology resolution.

In their questioning of the attorneys, the justices seemed to accept the state's argument that the resolution did not change the law which gives the state title to the lands, Bennett said after the arguments.

"It also sounded like when pressed, the attorney for the (Office of Hawaiian Affairs) acknowledged that," Bennett said.

Haunani Apoliona, chairwo- man of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, said she found it "very hard to tell" where the justices were going with their questions.

"There were a lot of questions," she said. "Some of the questions were ones we were hoping would be asked. Now we just have to wait."

'WE WANT JUSTICE'

A number of people from Hawai'i braved sub-freezing temperatures to stand in line outside the court to get a seat in the courtroom.

Leinaala Lopes, who was born and raised in Maunalaha Valley on O'ahu, and her husband, Wilfred, flew in to hear the arguments because they were concerned about the state getting control of their home, which sits on ceded lands.

"Our people have lived on this land from before (King) Kamehameha even conquered the island," she said. "All these years that our people have lived on this land, they were always threatened with being kicked off."

Lopes said she was concerned that if the court ruled in favor of the state, she and her family would lose their land, which they now lease.

"This would be the one way the state could get rid of us," she said.

While some Native Hawaiians were inside listening to the oral arguments, Liko Martin, who grew up in Waikiki, and four others prayed and spoke on behalf of the descendants of Kameha- meha on the steps of the Su- preme Court building.

They held photos of homeless Hawaiians living on the beach away from the tourist attractions. They said Native Hawaiians have been stripped of their land even though the royal family never gave up control of its property to the state or federal governments.

"Hawai'i is not part of the United States of America," said Martin, who wrote the song "Waimanalo Blues," which laments the loss of Hawaiian lands.

The bottom line is fair compensation, said Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee Colette Machado.

"We want justice to be done," said Machado, who wiped away tears as she spoke. "We stand for our queen, who went home empty-handed, and from there, the overthrow took place and she was imprisoned."

SETTING A PRECEDENT?

Gov. Linda Lingle and Bennett said Native Hawaiians have a "moral claim" to compensation stemming from the 1893 overthrow of Queen Lili'uokalani, an event the apology resolution had deemed illegal.

But they also say it goes too far to say the state doesn't own the 1.2 million acres of ceded lands.

State officials say they have no plans to sell or transfer anything but tiny parcels of the lands.

Some legal analysts say a ruling against the state of Hawai'i could set a precedent for other native populations to make claims to lands they once inhabited.