Hawai'i is soon to receive some much-needed interpretation of the Apology Resolution, the congressional act that passed in 1993, a century after the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.

At least the state will have a judicial reading — by the highest court in the land — answering this question: Does the resolution strip the state of the freedom to sell or transfer any of the kingdom's "ceded lands" it was given upon Hawai'i's admission to the union?

The state's hope, and it's a reasonable one, is that the justices will say: No, the resolution acknowledges unresolved claims without yielding the state's right to manage land in the meantime.

This should not be seen as erasing the state's commitment to negotiating a settlement on ceded lands with Native Hawaiian representatives, which remains the final goal.

But it's unreasonable and unnecessary to tie the state's hands in the management of the lands until the settlement is reached. After all, that could take decades.

Major hurdles must be cleared:

• Congress must pass a bill to give Native Hawaiians a way to organize themselves into a political entity that the federal government can recognize as a negotiating partner.

• The Native Hawaiian electorate must choose governing representatives.

• Talks must produce a final settlement of Native Hawaiian claims to that land.

The legal dispute that drew the U.S. Supreme Court's attention stems from a land deal with a private developer to build affordable homes. According to the Admissions Act, residential development was one of the ways ceded lands were to benefit the people of the state — Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians alike.

Native Hawaiians won't be precluded from negotiating their share of the land assets, once the legal framework for those talks are in place.

In the meantime, the state is right to work toward protecting its power to manage the land, for the benefit of all its citizens. The high court should affirm that right.