The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Native Hawaiians can sue the state to provide sufficient funding for administrative and operating expenses for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, but not for the development of homestead lots.

State lawyers and attorneys representing Native Hawaiian beneficiaries both claimed their side won.

Attorney General’s Office spokesman Joshua Wisch called the decision "largely a victory for the state."

"With this ruling, the state and its taxpayers are shielded from potentially tens of millions of dollars in annual liability," he said.

But David Frankel, Native Hawaiian Legal Corp. attorney who represented the Native Hawaiians, hailed the ruling as a "victory" for all beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Home Lands trust. "The underfunding or lack of funding has led to people dying on the waitlist," he said.

The Native Hawaiian Legal Corp. said Gov. Linda Lingle’s administration cut off all general funds to DHHL in 2009, requiring the department to fund itself by leasing land intended to benefit Native Hawaiians, the corporation said.

The number of Native Hawaiian applicants waiting for residential, ranch and agriculture lots grew to 23,000 in 2011 from 5,300 in 1978, according to the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp.

The high court issued a 47-page unanimous decision written by Associate Justice Sabrina McKenna.

The ruling focused on the 1978 state constitutional amendment that says the state Legislature must provide "sufficient funds" for administrative and operating expenses and also development of homestead lots.

The lawsuit by the beneficiaries seeking sufficient funding had been dismissed by Circuit Judge Bert Ayabe. He ruled that funding is a "political question" the courts cannot decide.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals last year reinstated the lawsuit. The state asked the high court to review the appeals court decision.

Wednesday’s ruling said the "political question" doctrine does not bar the beneficiaries from requesting sufficient funding for administrative and operating expenses. The court said the history of the 1978 Constitutional Convention provides standards to determine the amount of sufficient funds for those expenses. But the court said the convention did not "shed any light" on sufficient funding for the development of home, agriculture, aquaculture and farm lots.

As a result, that issue cannot be resolved by the courts under the "political question" doctrine, the court ruled.