Insular Cases

(Redirected from Kepner v. United States )

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 and Christina Burnett 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." Downes further claimed that "the administration of government and justice according to Anglo-Saxon principles may for a time be impossible". The District Court of the Virgin Islands has since repudiated the cases' "racist doctrine" and the era's "intrinsically racist imperialism".

Contents

• 1 Background

• 2 List of the Insular Cases

• 3 Doctrine of incorporation

• 4 Political debate

• 5 American reaction

• 6 Scholarly criticism

• 7 Judicial criticism and later challenges

• 8 Impact of the Insular Cases

• 9 Other cases

• 10 See also

• 11 References

• 12 Further reading

  • 12.1 Cases

• 13 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insular_Cases&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

In 1898, the United States signed the Treaty of Paris (which entered into force on April 11, 1899), 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 (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) 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 "[t]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

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insular_Cases&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: 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

…