A state court Tuesday granted a Hawaii island kumu hula’s request to temporarily overturn Gov. David Ige’s emergency proclamation restricting public access to Mauna Kea.

In a surprising twist, the order applies only to plaintiff Paul Kevin Neves with conditions.

Meanwhile a Hawaii island judge denied a request by Neves and six other anti-Thirty Meter Telescope petitioners to temporarily halt construction of the $1.4 billion project.

Neves, a Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner from Hilo, sued Ige on Thursday claiming that the proclamation prevents him from practicing traditional Native Hawaiian culture on the mountain, including going to the summit to pray.

Ige issued the emergency proclamation July 17 in response to the ongoing protest blocking the road to the summit to prevent the telescope’s construction.

The proclamation, the governor said, was intended to give law enforcement more flexibility and allow for the closure of vast areas of the mountain. The proclamation expires Aug. 2, though Ige can extend it.

The panel of three state judges — Edward H. Kubo Jr., Paul B.K. Wong and Gary W.B. Chang — issued an order Tuesday afternoon with “proper balance protecting the plaintiff’s constitutional rights with the governor’s (emergency proclamation) in protecting the health and safety of the public as well as law enforcement personnel and the ability to keep the Mauna Kea Access Road open.”

Nevis, who Tuesday evening was at the refuge, or Puu Huluhulu puuhonua, established by TMT protesters, declined to comment, saying he had yet to review the details of the ruling with his attorney.

The state Attorney General’s Office said Tuesday it would respect the court’s ruling and provide Nevis the access ordered by the court.

“We are gratified that the remainder of the emergency proclamation remains in effect and continues to be a tool to be used to preserve the safety of all of our citizens. We can assure the public that throughout this situation, Law Enforcement has conducted itself with professionalism and it will continue to do so,” the office said in a statement.

Despite language that limits access only to Nevis, some suggested the decision would open the way for others.

“That’s just really a portal for everyone else to follow, because Paul is claiming as a Native Hawaiian practitioner and is being given access to Mauna Kea, then that’s just the one man that will lead into the many, because you cannot just give one person,” said Luana Busby Neff, a Hawaiian cultural practitioner who has joined the Mauna Kea protest for a week.

“We have hundreds, thousands of Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners, so if he’s been allowed back by the court, then they actually just opened the door for everybody else to go in,” she said.

According to the ruling, Nevis can ascend the mountain on foot or motor vehicle during daylight hours but not when the convoy of construction trucks is rolling. In turn, the state must give Nevis no less than six hours’ notice before the start of the convoy, the order said.

Hilo Circuit Court Judge Greg Nakamura ruled earlier in the day that the TMT opponents who filed for the temporary restraining order could not prove that the developers would be unable to complete construction.

The claim, filed by Nevis and other Mauna Kea Hui petitioners, argued that the state’s 1977 Mauna Kea Plan requires developments at the summit to have a security bond in the amount of the full cost of the project.

The petitioners argued that if the TMT were to run out of money before it was completed, the taxpayers would be left to deal with the ramifications.

Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Richard Pollack had brought up the point during TMT oral arguments, but the high court ultimately endorsed the project.

“If I was a taxpayer — and I am — I would be totally embarrassed,” petitioner Clarence Ku Ching said after the court hearing.

The petitioners are also asking for an injunction, and a court hearing is scheduled for Aug. 27.

TMT attorney Douglas Ing said Nakamura made the right decision Tuesday.

“These issues were raised during the recent contested case hearings and the state Land Board ruled against the same petitioners on these very issues,” Ing said in a statement.

Star-Advertiser staff writer Kevin Dayton contributed to this story.