Perhaps no issue in Hawaii’s recent history has created more controversy and confusion than the legal proceedings surrounding the attempt to build the Thirty Meter Telescope on the sacred land of Mauna Kea.

On Dec. 22, the Star-Advertiser published a commentary written by state Rep. Scott Saiki lamenting the current state of the proceedings and calling for the Hawaii Supreme Court to appoint a master to get them back on track (“TMT case requires appointment of court master,” Island Voices). On Jan. 1, the Star-Advertiser’s editorial board endorsed Saiki’s proposal as “well worth consideration” (“Resolve to settle big issues in 2017,” Our View). Also, unlike Saiki, who asserted that reasonable people will agree to disagree on the issue, the editorial board unabashedly advocated for resolution of the matter in favor of the TMT proponents, without deference to Mauna Kea’s protectors, who include many respected scholars and community leaders.

The problem with Saiki’s simple solution is that it is not possible under Hawaii’s statutory and constitutional law. He relies on House Bill 1581, a 2016 law that allows the court to “reserve jurisdiction and appoint a master or monitor to ensure compliance with its orders” when the court “remands a matter for purposes of conducting a contested case hearing.”

At first glance, this provision appears perfectly suited to TMT, presently in remand to the state Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) after a procedural violation rendered its initial approval of the project unenforceable.

However, the court remanded the case to BLNR on Dec. 29, 2015. Upon that remand, the court lost jurisdiction over the matter. HB 1581 came into law on Aug. 1, 2016, over seven months after the court lost jurisdiction over the case.

The Hawaii Legislature did not make HB 1581 retroactive to apply to cases considered before its enact- ment. Therefore, even if the court wanted to appoint a master at this time, it could not legally do so.

If the case finds its way back into court, and the court decides to remand it again, it might be possible, at that time, for the court to appoint a master. But it would need to resolve several questions first. What would the master’s relationship to the hearing officer be? What would the costs of a master be, and who would pay them?

The stakes in this case are too high to sacrifice careful consideration of all sides in favor of saving time.

The Star-Advertiser’s editorial suggests that speedy resolution of the matter will work in favor of the TMT’s proponents, and this may be so. If it is, that is all the more reason to ensure that all parties receive fair and equal representation, and to avoid legally prohibited shortcuts or judicial oversight.

The Judiciary cannot step in where the Legislature has prohibited it from doing so. Therefore, for the time being, the proceedings must play out under the BLNR’s jurisdiction.

Andrea Freeman is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law.