Act 11: Hawaii’s nonprofit speech ban — and the lawsuit to stop it

Free speech lawsuit challenges new Hawaii law that would silence nonprofits and civic groups

The Institute for Free Speech has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Grassroot Institute to challenge Act 11, which stands to block the nonprofit’s civic advocacy efforts

HONOLULU, June 5, 2026 — A sweeping new Hawaii law aims to silence the groups that residents most typically use to make their voices heard — including advocacy organizations, unions, charitable nonprofits, and trade associations — by threatening dissolution if they exercise fundamental First Amendment rights of speech and association.

That’s why attorneys with the Institute for Free Speech filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, challenging the constitutionality of Act 11.

The lawsuit, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii v. Lopez, et al., seeks to protect the right of all Hawaii residents to join together and seek change.

“Act 11 is one of the most sweeping attacks on political speech we’ve seen in years,” explained Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Owen Yeates, lead litigator on behalf of the Grassroot Institute. “Americans have a constitutional right to join together through nonprofits and other associations to advocate for the causes that matter to them and their communities. Moreover, Americans have a right to decide for themselves which voices they want to hear. Act 11 strips those rights from the residents of Hawaii.”

The lawsuit argues that Act 11 violates the First Amendment’s protections of free speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press and freedom of petition and assembly. It further argues that key provisions of the law are unconstitutionally vague, leaving organizations unsure of where the line between lawful advocacy and prohibited activity lies.

“This law doesn’t affect just the Grassroot Institute,” noted Keliʻi Akina, president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. “It affects every Hawaii resident who wants to join with others to speak out on issues that impact their community. It doesn’t matter what the issue is or which side of it the organization is on. This law prevents citizens from organizing and pooling resources, time and effort to speak on topics of public concern.”

The nonprofit Grassroot Institute of Hawaii was founded in 2001 to promote individual liberty, economic freedom and limited, accountable government. Along with countless civic, cultural and advocacy organizations across the political spectrum in Hawaii, Grassroot now faces the prospect of abandoning activities inherent to its mission or risk incurring severe penalties for speaking out.

Act 11 prohibits incorporated entities — including nonprofits — from engaging in what the law calls “election activity” and “ballot-issue activity,” broadly defined to prohibit any spending to speak out for or against candidates, ballot measures or political parties.

The law authorizes an array of severe penalties, including suspension of an organization’s authority to operate, revocation of tax exemptions and even involuntary dissolution.

Act 11 sweeps far more broadly than Hawaii’s existing campaign finance statutes, which require registration and donor disclosure for anyone making “independent expenditures” and “electioneering communications,” but at least allow organizations to share their members’ views about ballot measures and candidates.

Act 11’s requirements and penalties present a substantial threat to the First Amendment rights of organizations such as the Grassroot Institute. Grassroot regularly publishes research, hosts events and communicates with the public about legislation, ballot measures, tax policy, housing reforms, government accountability and other issues vital to Hawaii residents.

The organization’s speech often includes communications that identify elected officials’ policy positions. Under Act 11, this core advocacy could be treated as prohibited “election activity,” placing the organization in jeopardy for speaking about the very issues it was founded to address.

It does this by prohibiting any spending to “directly or indirectly … support or oppose” a candidate — terms so broad that even routine legislative education and advocacy mentioning elected officials could trigger enforcement.

Those aren’t Act 11’s only defects. Even as the law imposes these severe and broad restrictions, it simultaneously carves out an exemption for certain corporations: namely, institutional press entities, such as newspapers, broadcasters and periodicals. But the government cannot selectively determine which speakers enjoy First Amendment rights and which do not.

Notably, as the Legislature considered the bill that became Act 11, Hawaii’s attorney general repeatedly stated her strong opposition to the proposal, warning lawmakers that it would likely conflict with existing Supreme Court precedent, could constitute an unconstitutional content-based speech restriction and could expose Hawaii taxpayers to substantial litigation costs as the state tries to defend a law that “is likely impossible to defend.” The Legislature passed the measure anyway, and it became law on May 14, 2026.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the enforcement of Act 11.

To read the complaint in Grassroot Institute of Hawaii v. Lopez, et al., click here. To visit the case page, click here.

For more information or to arrange an interview with Akina, please contact Tom Garrett, Institute for Free Speech vice president and chief communications officer, at 202-301-9200 or tgarrett@ifs.org.

#  #  #

The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research and educational institute devoted to promoting individual liberty, economic freedom and limited, accountable government. Its goal is to improve the quality of life in Hawaii by lowering the cost of living and expanding opportunities for all.

The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment.