 | ||
Similar Tuaua v United States, Plessy v Ferguson, Boumediene v Bush, Muller v Oregon, Lochner v New York | ||
Keynote address the insular cases a declaration of their bankruptcy and my harvard pronouncement
The Insular Cases are a series of opinions by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1901, about the status of U.S. territories acquired in the Spanish–American War. The Supreme Court held that full constitutional protection of rights does not automatically (or ex proprio vigore—i.e., of its own force) 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 (e.g., the right to remain part of the United States in case of de-annexation).
Contents
- Keynote address the insular cases a declaration of their bankruptcy and my harvard pronouncement
- Panel i history perspectives and lessons
- Background
- List of the Insular Cases
- Criticism
- References
The Court also established the doctrine of territorial incorporation, under which the Constitution applied fully only in incorporated territories such as Alaska and Hawaii, whereas it applied only partially in the newly unincorporated Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.
The term "insular" signifies that the territories were islands administered by the War Department's Bureau of Insular Affairs.
Panel i history perspectives and lessons
Background
In 1898, the United States signed the Treaty of Paris (entered into force April 11, 1899), which ended the Spanish–American War and granted the United States 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. At the time, there was a debate on how to govern these new territories since nothing was said about it in the U.S. Constitution.
The cases were the Court's response to a major issue of the 1900 presidential election and the American Anti-Imperialist League, summarized by the phrase "Does the Constitution follow the flag?"
List of the Insular Cases
Various authorities 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 consisted 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:
Other authorities, such as 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:
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, 182 U.S. 221 (1901).
Six of the nine Insular Cases only involve 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:
The Insular Cases, hence, often include:
Criticism
Former Puerto Rico Supreme Court Chief Justice José Trías Monge contends that the Insular Cases were based on premises that would be considered bizarre today, such as:
In Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980), the Court applied Califano v. Torres, 435 U.S. 1 (1978) in a succinct per curiam order, holding that less aid to Puerto Rican families with dependent children did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because in U.S. territories Congress can discriminate against its citizens applying a rational basis review. Justice Marshall wrote a staunch dissent, noting that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens and that the Insular Cases are questionable.
In Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465 (1979), cited above, Justice Brennan, with whom Justice Stewart, Justice Marshall, and Justice Blackmun joined, concurring in the judgment, cited Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 14 (1957), in which Justice Black said the "concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our Government".