But Native Hawaiian activists and attorneys believe that the two lawsuits are dissimilar and are likely to have different outcomes.

Bill Burgess, attorney for Earl Arakaki and about a dozen local residents who are seeking to dismantle OHA and DHHL, said that Monday's ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiian-preference admissions policy signals the court's reluctance to uphold race-based programs, whether it's in a private organization like the Kamehameha Schools or a public entity such as OHA or DHHL.

"It's encouraging because we are dealing with the same issues on the two cases," Burgess said.

A 9th Circuit panel is reviewing Burgess' appeal to the Arakaki v. Lingle lawsuit, which argues that government social-assistance programs such as OHA and DHHL that provide money to people based on race are unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway dismissed the Arakaki v. Lingle lawsuit last year saying that the court should not interfere with the ongoing congressional debate over Hawaiians' political status in addition to ruling that the plaintiffs did not have standing.

Burgess said he believes that the makeup of the 9th Circuit panel is favorable to his cause.

One of its members is Jay Bybee, who authored the opinion that struck down Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy. And another member is a potential swing vote, Melvin Brunetti, who was appointed to the bench by President Reagan and known for his conservative views, Burgess said.

Burgess also noted that Bybee, who authored the opinion in the Kamehameha Schools case, paid close attention to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Rice v. Cayetano case, which struck down the Hawaiians-only voting for OHA elections. The landmark 2000 ruling designated Hawaiians as a racial group and not as a political group, paving the way for new challenges to social programs tailored to Native Hawaiians.

The third panelist is Susan Graber, who also was a member of the Kamehameha Schools panel and authored the dissenting opinion in defense of the school's admissions policy.

Graber, a Clinton appointee, is well known for her defense of affirmative action programs. Last year she wrote a dissenting opinion to a 9th Circuit decision that rejected the Seattle School District's use of racial "tie-breakers" to assign African-American students to popular schools.

The panel's decision in the Seattle case is being reviewed by a new 11-member 9th Circuit panel after the school district was able to convince the full 9th Circuit to conduct such an en banc, or full, review.

Kamehameha Schools said it plans to file for en banc review of its case.

Former state Supreme Court Justice Robert Klein said he sees the 9th Circuit's leanings in the Arakaki case differently.

Klein, who represents the state Council for Hawaiian Homestead Associations, said that Brunetti in particular is very aware of the issues that are under appeal. Unlike the Kamehameha Schools case, which is focused on civil rights laws, Klein said the issue in the Arakaki case is one of standing and the panel's questions during oral arguments held last year reflected that.

Constitutional issues that Burgess hopes to raise aren't going to be addressed by the appellate court, Klein said.

If the panel rules that Arakaki doesn't have standing to bring the case, it essentially upholds OHA and DHHL's right to operate, he said.

If the panel grants standing to Arakaki, then the case has to be sent back to the lower courts in Hawai'i for further hearings on the constitutional challenges to the Hawaiian programs, Klein said.

"The similarities are very few and very far between," said Klein.

Correction: A previous version of this story did not fully explain why U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway dismissed the Arakaki v. Lingle lawsuit last year.