Supreme Court Won’t Consider Rights For U.S. Territory Citizens—Even After Neil Gorsuch Slammed Its Racist Precedents

Topline

The Supreme Court will not consider whether citizens of U.S. territories like American Samoa will have full constitutional rights, as the court declined Monday to hear a case that could have overturned a series of rulings that limited their rights—known as the “Insular Cases”—months after Justice Neil Gorsuch urged the court to reconsider the “shameful” decisions.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a case that could have overturned the “Insular … [+] Cases” depriving territory residents of full constitutional rights.

Getty Images

Key Facts

The Supreme Court announced it will not take up Fitisemanu v. United States, which asked the court to decide whether citizens of U.S. territories have birthright citizenship under the U.S. Constitution after an appeals court ruled that they did not.

The case also asked the court to overturn the “Insular Cases,” a series of Supreme Court decisions from the early 1900s that established citizens of U.S. territories are not entitled to full rights under the Constitution.

The case Downes v. Bidwell declared Puerto Rico wasn’t going to be “incorporated” into the U.S. like other territories on a path to statehood and thus shouldn’t be covered by the Constitution, for instance, while Balzac v. Puerto Rico in 1922 determined that people in territories were only guaranteed “fundamental” rights under the Constitution and not entitled to all of its protections.

Fitisemanu v. United States was brought by American Samoans residing in the U.S. who challenge that they don’t have equal rights under the Constitution, arguing they’re “labeled second-class by the U.S. government” and even those who reside in U.S. states are unable to vote unless they undergo the process to become naturalized citizens.

Justice Neil Gorsuch had said the Supreme Court should take up the Insular Cases in April in a separate case concerning benefits for Puerto Ricans, arguing the cases “rest on racial stereotypes”—the decisions argue territory residents shouldn’t have equal rights because they’re “alien races” who shouldn’t be governed “according to Anglo-Saxon principles”—and “deserve no place in our law.”

The Supreme Court did not explain its reasoning in rejecting Fitisemanu v. United States and did not say if any justices had dissented from the decision not to take the case up, even though Gorsuch and Justice Sonia Sotomayor have pushed for the Insular Cases to be overturned.

Crucial Quote

“The subordinate, inferior non-citizen national status relegates American Samoans to second-class participation in the Republic,” the petitioners told the Supreme Court in their request for it to take up Fitisemanu v. United States.

Chief Critic

John Fitisemanu, the lead plaintiff in the case, called the Supreme Court’s decision not to take it up a “punch in the gut” in a statement Monday. “I had hoped to hear today that I would have my day before the U.S. Supreme Court,” he added. “But instead the Justices continue to avoid answering basic questions about what rights people from U.S. territories can expect.”

What We Don’t Know

Whether the Supreme Court could still take up a different case that challenges the Insular Cases, given that the court didn’t explain its reasoning in not taking up the case.

Surprising Fact

The Biden administration had asked the Supreme Court not to take up Fitisemanu v. United States and overturn the Insular Cases. The DOJ said in a court briefing in the case that while it does not agree with the “the indefensible and discredited aspects” of the Insular Cases, it does believe that those in U.S. territories don’t have equal rights under the Constitution and the issue should be left to Congress to decide.

Key Background

The Insular Cases were decided in the early 1900s after the Spanish American War, which gave the U.S. control of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines (which became an independent nation in 1946). American Samoa is right now the only U.S. territory where residents don’t have birthright citizenship under the Constitution, after Congress recognized rights for residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands, though the plaintiffs in Fitisemanu v. United States argued those rights are only in place “for now” and could still be overturned, necessitating why the court should overturn the Insular Cases altogether. Civil rights groups have urged the Biden administration in February to publicly condemn the Insular Cases and not rely on them for any future court cases, and a House resolution has been pending since March 2021 that would disavow the rulings but has so far not been passed. No action has yet been taken on that, however, even after the Insular Cases garnered more attention in light of Gorsuch’s opposition to them in April.