United States of America v. Nago

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SCOTT NAGO, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS CHIEF ELECTIONS
OFFICER FOR THE STATE OF HAWAII;
Defendant.
CIV. NO. 25-00522 LEK-RT
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION TO STAY
On March 5, 2026, Defendant Scott T. Nago, in his
official capacity as Chief Elections Officer for the State of
Hawai`i (“Defendant”), filed a Renewed Motion to Stay and First
Motion to Continue Date of Motions Hearing (“Second Motion to
Stay”). 1 [Dkt. no. 75.] Plaintiff United States of America
(“United States”) filed its response to the Second Motion to
Stay on March 19, 2026 (“Response”), and Defendant filed his
1 Intervenor-Defendant NAACP California-Hawaii State
Conference’s (“NAACP CA-HI”) Rule 12 Motion, [filed 2/18/26
(dkt. no. 52),] and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [filed
2/18/26 (dkt. no. 53),] (collectively “Rule 12 Motions”) were
scheduled for hearing on April 3, 2026. See Minute Order – EO:
Order Setting Briefing Schedule, filed 2/20/26 (dkt. no. 56).
Defendant’s request to continue the April 3, 3026 hearing,
[Second Motion to Stay at 1,] is moot because the April 3, 2026
hearing has already been vacated, pending the outcome of the
Second Motion to Stay. See Minute Order - EO: Order Regarding
Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Stay and First Motion to Continue
Date of Motions Hearing, filed 3/6/26 (dkt. no. 77).
Case 1:25-cv-00522-LEK-RT Document 81 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 7
PageID.<pageID>

2
reply in support of the Second Motion to Stay on March 25, 2026
(“Reply”). [Dkt. nos. 79, 80.] This matter is suitable for
disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.1(c) of the
Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for
the District of Hawaii (“Local Rules”). Defendant’s Motion is
granted for the reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
In this case, the United States alleges that
Defendant’s refusal to comply with the United States’ request
for the production of election records violates Title III of the
Civil Rights Act of 1960, specifically, Title 52 United States
Code Section 20703. See Complaint, filed 12/11/25 (dkt. no. 1),
at ¶¶ 16-29. The United States seeks, inter alia, an order
compelling Defendant to provide an electronic copy of the
Hawai`i statewide voter registration list, including all fields
(“SVRL”). See id. at pg. 9, ¶ B.
On February 2, 2026, Defendant filed a motion seeking
a stay of this case, pending the resolution of two anticipated
appeals in related cases in other district courts within the
Ninth Circuit (“First Motion to Stay”). [Dkt. no. 44.] At the
time that Defendant filed the First Motion to Stay, a district
court in the Central District of California had dismissed a
similar complaint filed by the United States and found that
amendment of the complaint would be futile, see United States v.
Case 1:25-cv-00522-LEK-RT Document 81 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 7
PageID.<pageID>

3
Weber, Case No. 2:25-cv-09149-DOC-ADS, 2026 WL 118807 (C.D. Cal.
Jan. 15, 2026), and a district court in the District of Oregon
had orally granted the motions to dismiss another similar
complaint by the United States, see United States v. Oregon et
al., Case No. 6:25-cv-01666-MTK (D. Or.), Minutes of Proceeding,
filed 1/26/26 (dkt. no. 68). This Court denied Defendant’s First
Motion to Stay, finding that it was speculative whether the
United States would file an appeal in Weber and in Oregon, and
how long it would take for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to
issue decisions if such appeals were filed. See Order Denying
Defendant’s Motion to Stay, filed 2/4/26 (dkt. no. 50), at 3-4.
The Second Motion to Stay points out that appeals were
docketed in both Weber and Oregon on March 3, 2026. [Second
Motion to Stay at 1.] After Defendant filed the Second Motion to
Stay, a motion to expedite was granted in each appeal, and both
appeals are scheduled for oral argument on May 19, 2026. See
Reply at 2. Defendant argues “there is significant overlap of
the issues between this case and the Weber and Oregon appeals,
such that the resolution of those appeals will likely be
dispositive of, or at least dispositive of many of the issues
presented by, this case.” [Second Motion to Stay, Mem. in Supp.
at 4 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).]
Case 1:25-cv-00522-LEK-RT Document 81 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 7
PageID.<pageID>

4
DISCUSSION
“[This Court] possesses ‘inherent authority to
stay federal proceedings pursuant to its docket
management powers.’” In re PG&E Corp. Sec.
Litig., 100 F.4th 1076, 1085 (9th Cir. 2024)
(quoting Ernest Bock, LLC v. Steelman, 76 F.4th
827, 842 (9th Cir. 2023)). When considering
whether to grant such a stay, courts must weigh
three non-exclusive factors: “(1) ‘the possible
damage which may result from the granting of a
stay’; (2) ‘the hardship or inequity which a
party may suffer in being required to go
forward’; and (3) ‘the orderly course of justice
measured in terms of the simplifying or
complicating of issues, proof, and questions of
law.’” Ernest Bock, 76 F.4th at 842 (quoting
Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th
Cir. 2005)).
See Chinaryan v. City of Los Angeles, 122 F.4th 823, 825 (9th
Cir. 2024).
At the outset, this Court notes that, because the
Weber and Oregon appeals have been set for expedited briefing
schedules and oral argument, a stay pending the Ninth Circuit’s
decisions in those appeals is likely to be relatively short.
The United States argues that staying this case would
frustrate its ability to ensure that the State of Hawai`i (“the
State”) is complying with federal voting laws. See Response at
3. The United States argues that, if it “ultimately receive[s]
the electronic SVRL and find[s] that Hawaii is deficient in its
list maintenance practices, an enforcement action may be
necessary to force Hawaii to remove ineligible voters.” [Id. at
3-4.] The United States emphasizes that the State “must finish
Case 1:25-cv-00522-LEK-RT Document 81 Filed 04/06/26 Page 4 of 7
PageID.<pageID>

5
removing nonvoters from its rolls in systemic processes by
August 4, 2026.” [Id. at 4 (citing 52 U.S.C. 20507(c)(2)(A)).]
While this Court acknowledges the importance of state compliance
with federal voting laws, the United States merely speculates
about unspecified noncompliance by the State. Thus, this Court
finds that there would be minimal damage to the United States if
a stay, which is likely to be brief, is granted.
This Court also finds that the State would not suffer
significant hardship or inequity if a stay is denied. Defendant
has already filed a consolidated opposition to the Rule 12
Motions, [filed 3/6/26 (dkt. no. 78)]. If the Second Motion to
Stay is denied, defense counsel would be required to prepare for
and appear at the hearing on the Rule 12 Motions. Even if this
Court denies the Rule 12 Motions, this Court would then issue a
briefing schedule for the United States’ Motion for Order to
Compel Records Demanded Pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1960
(“Motion to Compel”), [filed 12/11/25 (dkt. no. 5)]. Given the
expedited schedule in the Weber and Oregon appeals, it is likely
that the Ninth Circuit will issue its decisions in those appeals
before this Court rules on the Motion to Compel in the instant
case. Thus, it is unlikely that the State would be compelled to
take any compliance action before the Ninth Circuit issued its
decisions in the Weber and Oregon appeals.
Case 1:25-cv-00522-LEK-RT Document 81 Filed 04/06/26 Page 5 of 7
PageID.<pageID>

6
Although the first two factors weigh neither heavily
in favor of granting a stay nor heavily in favor of denying a
stay, this Court finds that “the orderly course of justice
measured in terms of the simplifying . . . issues, proof, and
questions of law” weighs heavily in favor of a stay. See
Chinaryan, 122 F.4th at 825 (quotation marks and citation
omitted). The Ninth Circuit’s decisions in the Weber and Oregon
appeals will likely be issued within a relatively short period,
and the decisions may be dispositive of the instant case.
Having considered all of the relevant factors, this
Court finds that it is appropriate to exercise its inherent
authority and stay the instant case until the Ninth Circuit
issues its decisions in the Weber and Oregon appeals.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Renewed Motion
to Stay, filed March 5, 2026, is HEREBY GRANTED. The instant
case is STAYED, pending the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in the
Weber and Oregon appeals.
Defendant is DIRECTED to file a notice advising this
Court of the Ninth Circuit’s decisions on the Weber and Oregon
appeals within seven days after the decisions are issued. This
Court will then address the lifting of the stay.
Case 1:25-cv-00522-LEK-RT Document 81 Filed 04/06/26 Page 6 of 7
PageID.<pageID>

7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, April 6, 2026.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS. SCOTT NAGO, ETC.; CV 25-00522 LEK-
RT; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION TO STAY
Case 1:25-cv-00522-LEK-RT Document 81 Filed 04/06/26 Page 7 of 7
PageID.<pageID>