The Insular Cases are a series of opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1901 pertaining to the status of U.S. territories acquired in the Spanish–American War. The term "insular" refers to the territories that were islands administered by the War Department's Bureau of Insular Affairs. Today, the legal rulings outlined in the Insular Cases continue to govern the United States' territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

In one of the cases, the Court established the landmark doctrine of territorial incorporation. This doctrine is the legal principle that makes distinctions on where the Constitution applies in regards to non-contiguous territories of the United States. Incorporated territories are those that the United States Congress deems on a path to statehood, and where the Constitution is applied fully. Alaska and Hawaii were former incorporated territories that are now admitted into the statehood. On the contrary, unincorporated territories are not on track to statehood, and thus, effectively allowed for the Constitution to apply differently.

Many legal scholars such as José Julián Álvarez González, Christina Burnett, and others refer to the Insular Cases as a constitutional justification for colonialism and annexation of places not within United States boundaries. The Insular Cases "authorized the colonial regime created by Congress, which allowed the United States to continue its administration—and exploitation—of the territories acquired from Spain after the Spanish–American War." These Supreme Court rulings allowed for the United States government to extend unilateral power over these newly acquired territories.

Moreover, the Insular Cases are widely considered racist. The Downes v. Bidwell case called the people of the Insular areas "alien races" and the DeLima v. Bidwell ruling termed them "savage tribes." because they were not part of the United States.

In 1900, Congress passed the Foraker Act, which established governmental structure in Puerto Rico. It allowed the United States to appoint the governor, a portion of the legislature, and the entirety of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. However, the Insular Cases soon set a precedent that the territories are not inherently part of the United States and therefore, the Citizenship Clause or other portions of the United States Constitution do not automatically apply.

List of the Insular Cases

Many legal scholars and jurists have listed what they consider are the legitimate constituents of the Insular Cases.

Juan R. Torruella, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over the Federal Court for the District of Puerto Rico), considers that the landmark decisions consist of six fundamental cases only, all decided in 1901: "strictly speaking the Insular Cases are the original six opinions issued concerning acquired territories as a result of the 1898 Treaty of Paris". These six cases were:

  • DeLima v. Bidwell, ; Argued: January 8–11, 1901; Decided: May 27, 1901
  • Goetze v. United States, ; Argued: December 17–20, 1900; January 14–15, 1901; Decided: May 27, 1901
  • Dooley v. United States, ; Argued: January 8–11, 1901. Decided: May 27, 1901
  • Armstrong v. United States, ; Argued: January 8–11, 1901; Decided: May 27, 1901
  • Downes v. Bidwell, ; Argued: January 8–11, 1901; Decided: May 27, 1901
  • Huus v. New York and Porto Rico Steamship Co., ; Argued: January 11, 14, 1901; Decided: May 27, 1901

Another jurist, José Trías Monge, former Chief Justice of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, states that the list also includes these additional two cases also decided in 1901:

  • Dooley v. United States,
  • Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States, ; Argued: December 17–20, 1900. Decided: December 2, 1901

Law professor Pedro A. Malavet wrote in his book America's Colony: The Political and Cultural Conflict Between the United States and Puerto Rico, that while many law experts include cases from 1903 to 1979, some scholars limit the number of cases in the list to just nine, adding Crossman v. United States, .

The U.S. Congress passed a resolution that collected the relevant records, briefs, and oral arguments of the 1901 cases concerning the U.S. Territories. In the compilation, the cases considered at the time of their decision as the Insular Cases were DeLima, Goetze, Dooley, Dooley, Armstrong, Downes, Crossman, and Huus.

Six of the nine Insular Cases deal exclusively with Puerto Rico.

  • Hawaii v. Mankichi,
  • Gonzales v. Williams,
  • Kepner v. United States,
  • Dorr v. United States,
  • Mendozana v. United States,
  • Rasmussen v. United States,
  • Trono v. United States,
  • Grafton v. United States,
  • Kent v. Porto Rico,
  • Kopel v. Bingham,
  • Dowdell v. United States,
  • Ochoa v. Hernández,
  • Ocampo v. United States,

Some include the later Supreme Court rulings of:

  • Balzac v. Porto Rico,
  • Dorr v. United States,

In Balzac, the Supreme Court found that Puerto Ricans, who were granted statutory citizenship through the Jones Act (1917), are not guaranteed a trial by jury, an inherent aspect of the United States Constitution. Similarly, in Dorr v. United States (1904), the Supreme Court ruled against right to trial by jury for Philippines residents.

The political debate surrounding the Insular Cases was split between expansionists and anti-expansionists, which largely followed Democratic-Republican party lines. Following the American Civil War and preceding the Spanish-American War, the Reconstruction Constitution that had guaranteed any inhabitants of American annexed territories the full benefit of United States citizenship and ultimate statehood. Historian Sam Erman notes that the strength of the Reconstruction Constitution had become weakened by the time of the Insular Cases, as a result of Southern Democrats' efforts to disenfranchise African-Americans in the South, and Republicans' waning support for Reconstruction measures.

American reaction

Scholar Bartholomew Sparrow notes that almost all of the Insular Case opinions were 5–4 within the Supreme Court, demonstrating the contentious nature of the topic even from the highest voice of law in the United States. Scholar Rick Baldoz notes that American political "anxieties about immigration, race, and economic competition"

The Insular Cases have also been criticized for having been inconsistent in application between the two largest insular territories, the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico was seen as "an important geo-strategic asset"

Writing in 2001, former Puerto Rico Supreme Court Chief Justice José Trías Monge contends that the Insular Cases were based on premises that would be legally and politically unacceptable in the 21st century, premises such as:

  • Democracy and colonialism are "fully compatible".
  • There is "nothing wrong when a democracy such as the United States engages in the business of governing other" subjects that have not participated in their democratic election process.
  • People are not created equal, some races being superior to others.
  • It is the "burden of the superior peoples, the white man's burden, to bring up others in their image, except to the extent that the nation which possesses them should in due time determine". Gorsuch argues that the Court must find a case to overrule the Insular Cases which were "based on racist assumptions and imperial ambitions." The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit had ruled in this case that the Insular Cases should stand.

Impact of the Insular Cases

The Philippines was recognized as an independent country in 1946, following World War II. Guam and Puerto Rico have remained unincorporated territories. Additionally, the U.S. has gained several other unincorporated territories, including American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The implications of the ruling extends to these territories as well.

For Puerto Rico, the outcomes of the Insular Cases laid a foundation for the modern "political question" of Puerto Rican status in relation to the United States, in which Puerto Ricans continue to be classified as alien. The incorporation doctrine's "uncertainty" has allowed U.S. courts the ability to discriminate against Puerto Rican plaintiffs on issues of individual welfare and entitlement into the current day.

In American Samoa, the Insular Cases serve as a mechanism for defense in further assimilating into the American way of life. Given its unincorporated status, its people lack full constitutional rights, including birthright citizenship. However, American Samoans believe that the full application of the Constitution affects their values and ways of life. Palmyra had been part of the incorporated Territory of Hawaii until 1959, when Palmyra was deliberately excluded from the new State of Hawaii by the Hawaii Admission Act. Palmyra is left as a remnant of the old incorporated territory, therefore, the Constitution applies there in full.

Amy Kaplan argues that the Insular Cases helped create the legal backing of the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp in Guantánamo, Cuba, where constitutional rights "remain indeterminate".

Other cases

  • Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.,
  • Examining Bd. v. Flores de Otero,
  • Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party,
  • Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle,
  • Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust,
  • Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC,
  • Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc.,
  • (2015)

See also

  • Insular area
  • Guano Islands Act
  • Guantánamo Bay
  • Philippine–American War
  • Puerto Rico
  • Unincorporated territories of the United States

References

Further reading

  • Neuman, Gerald L., and Tomiko Brown-Nagin, eds. Reconsidering the Insular Cases: The Past and Future of the American Empire (Harvard University Press, 2015).
  • Rennie, Russell. "A qualified defense of the Insular Cases." New York University Law Review 92 (2017): 1683+ online.
  • Sparrow, Bartholomew H. "The Centennial of Ocampo v. United States: Lessons from the Insular Cases." in Reconsidering the Insular Cases: The Past and Future of the American Empire, edited by Gerald L. Neuman and Tomiko Brown-Nagin, (Harvard University Press, 2015), pp. 39–60.
  • Sparrow, Bartholomew H. The insular cases and the emergence of American empire (Landmark Law Cases & American, 2006).
  • Torruella, Juan R. "Ruling America's colonies: The insular cases." Yale Law and Policy Review 32 (2013): 57+ online.

Cases

  • Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan. 586 F.Supp.2d 22 (2008). Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce, et al., Plaintiffs v. Johnny Rullan, Secretary of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Defendant. Civil Nos. 06-1260(GAG), 06-1524(GAG). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. October 10, 2008. As Corrected November 10, 2008. Retrieved April 1, 2013.
  • Opinion and Order: Consejo de Salud de la Playa de Ponce vs. Johnny Rullan, Secretary of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Gustavo A. Gelpi. USDC, D of Puerto Rico. San Juan, PR. Civil Numbers 06-1260 (GAG) and 06-1524 (GAG) (Consolidated). November 10, 2008. Retrieved April 1, 2013.
  • Boumediene v. Bush 553 U.S. 723 (2008)
  • Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
  • Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (478 U.S. 328) (1986)
  • The Insular Empire: America in the Mariana Islands, a one-hour PBS documentary by New Day Films .