Pity the legal eagles working for the state of Hawai'i these days.

On one side, they defend Gov. Linda Lingle's position that Hawaiians are owed a fair settlement for the use of ceded lands, those 1.2 million to 1.6 million acres of former crown and government lands ceded in trust to the state in 1959.

On the other, they are now fighting to reverse a state Supreme Court decision that put a powerful boost behind efforts to get that "fair settlement" resolved. The Hawai'i court in effect put a gun to the head of negotiators by placing a hold on any transfer or sale of ceded lands until a claims dispute with Hawaiians is resolved.

The Hawai'i court said the 1993 federal "Apology Resolution" demands resolution of ceded lands claims and thus nothing should be done with the ceded lands until that happens.

The ruling, while popular with Hawaiian claimants, potentially does serious damage to the state's constitutional right to make use of lands it controls, the state has argued.

And now, some 29 other states have joined Hawai'i in its appeal against the Hawai'i high court ruling before the U.S. Supreme Court. That's a big deal. It says, in effect, that the Hawai'i decision has important constitutional implications for states across the country if allowed to stand.

What's interesting is that the other states really have little formal interest in Hawaiian claims for land or reparations. But they do care mightily about keeping Uncle Sam out of their hair when it comes to making decisions about lands they control.

A key element in the Hawai'i Supreme Court ruling was that the Apology Resolution to Hawaiians has the force and effect of federal law.

That's what has the other states' dander up. They believe firmly the federal government has no right to step in and place restrictions on the use of lands once they are transferred from federal to state control upon a state's entry into the union.

In making that argument, the other states insist the Hawai'i court fundamentally misunderstood federal law. The Apology Resolution, they say, is simply that: an apology. It doesn't have the power to overturn existing federal law and longstanding court rulings.

Supporters of the Hawaiian cause say there is ample precedent; that the courts have allowed land holds elsewhere and around the world when claims by native peoples were in progress.

So this case will have implications far beyond the issue of state versus federal rights to decide what is to be done with certain state lands. It also takes direct aim at the foundation of much of the argument made for restoration of Hawaiian rights and land: the Apology Resolution.

Jerry Burris' column appears Wednesdays. See his blog at http://akamaipolitics.honadvblogs.com. Reach him at jrryburris@yahoo.com.

Jerry Burris' column appears Wednesdays in this space. See his blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/akamaipolitics. Reach him at jrryburris@yahoo.com.