Insular Cases


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." The Downes v. Bidwell case further suggested that the land is "inhabited by alien races" and "the administration of government and justice according to Anglo-Saxon principles may for a time be impossible". The District Court of the Virgin Islands called out the cases' "racist doctrine" and the era's "intrinsically racist imperialism".

Background

In 1898, the United States signed the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Spanish–American War and granted the United States sovereignty over the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Additionally, Cuba remained under the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government until its independence on May 20, 1902.
The acquisition of the former Spanish colonies prompted debate in the United States about how the former Spanish land would be governed. The United States had to answer the question of whether or not people in newly acquired territories were citizens, a question the country had never faced before. The answer came from the Insular Cases, which responded to the question of how American constitutional rights apply to those in United States territories. The Supreme Court held that full constitutional protection of rights does not automatically extend to all places under American control. This meant that inhabitants of unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico—"even if they are U.S. citizens"—may lack some constitutional rights 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. The act also imposed taxes and duties collected on goods imported from the United States to Puerto Rico. This raised serious constitutionality issues, and formed the legal basis of the Insular Cases.
In addition to the Foraker Act, the Citizenship Clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution informed the Insular Cases decisions. Scholar Lisa Marie Perez writes in the Virginia Law Review that "he Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. 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. Furthermore, the Citizenship Clause was crucial throughout the 1800s in the United States, as both the country and citizenship expanded. Soon, the precedent from the Insular Cases became very different from early interpretations of the Citizenship Clause.

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, 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.
Constitutional law professor Efrén Rivera-Ramos argues that the "Insular Cases" designation has been extended beyond the first nine cases in 1901 to include additional cases decided between 1903 and 1914:
  • 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, are not guaranteed a trial by jury, an inherent aspect of the United States Constitution. Similarly, in Dorr v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled against right to trial by jury for Philippines residents. These two cases reiterate the idea established in the Insular Cases; the Constitution does not automatically extend to territories ex proprio vigore, or by its own force.

Doctrine of incorporation

An instrumental part of the Insular Cases is the creation of a doctrine that allows the United States to acquire and govern non-contiguous territories. The most important doctrinal lines from the Insular Cases include the idea of incorporated and unincorporated territories, and the overarching principle that the Constitution does not inherently extend to unincorporated territories.
Downes v. Bidwell created the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territories. The former is on path to statehood, while the latter is not. The Supreme Court came to this decision by examining Congress' right to impose tariffs on states and territories. Legal scholar Bartholomew Sparrow writes that in Downes v. Bidwell, "the Court found that Congress could tax trade between Puerto Rico and the states. Puerto Rico was thus not a part of the United States for tariff purposes—contrary to the Uniformity Clause." Although the Uniformity Clause states that Congress must enforce tariffs equally throughout the United States, the Supreme Court created a distinction between territories that were fully part of the union and those that were not, allowing them to ignore the Uniformity Clause.
Justice Edward Douglas White described the incorporated territories as "an integral part of the United States," and on the likely path towards statehood. On the other hand, he described unincorporated territories as "appurtenant" to the United States, and "foreign... in the domestic sense." After this ruling, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines became unincorporated territories. With this new legal establishment, the Court also found that in these said territories, the Constitution "did not apply in full". Instead, it could be extended at Congress' discretion. The lines of reasoning from Downes v. Bidwell created legal precedent for the remainder of the Insular Cases.
In DeLima v. Bidwell, the Supreme Court found "Puerto Rico was part of the United States for the purpose of the Uniformity Clause." Therefore, duties could not be collected from Puerto Rico. The Supreme Court set alternative precedents in Downes v. Bidwell and DeLima v. Bidwell based on the differing interpretation of the Uniformity Clause of the United States Constitution and the subsequent implications of these rulings.