Supreme Court Declines To Take Case Aimed At Overturning 100-Year-Old Racist Precedents
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Supreme Court declined to take a case challenging its 100-year-old racist precedents that continue to deny equal rights to the 3.6 million residents of overseas U.S. territories on Monday.
Three American Samoans living in Utah and a Samoan nonprofit petitioned the court in Fitisemanu v. U.S. to overturn the Insular Cases, the court's early 20th-century precedents that enabled the country's colonial expansion by allowing it to absorb overseas territories populated by non-white peoples while denying them equal rights or a path to statehood.
"It's a punch in the gut for the Justices to leave in place a ruling that says I am not equal to other Americans simply because I was born in a U.S. territory," John Fitisemanu, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement. "I was born on U.S. soil, have a U.S. passport, and pay my taxes like everyone else. But because of a discriminatory federal law, I am not recognized as a U.S. citizen."
The Insular Cases that deny people like Fitisemanu equal rights as citizens were explicitly founded on racist premises. The cases, which occurred from 1901 to 1922, claimed that the people of the overseas territories the U.S. conquered in the Spanish-American War came from "savage tribes" and "alien" and "uncivilized race[s]" who were "absolutely unfit to receive" the rights provided by the Constitution. The court invented a new legal class of "unincorporated territory" for the colonial possessions taken from Spain that denied them equal rights and statehood.
Today, the Insular Cases still govern the U.S. overseas territories of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In each territory, Congress has negotiated different rules for people's access to their rights as Americans.
For example, unlike other territorial inhabitants, American Samoans are not officially U.S. citizens, but American nationals. This means that even if they move to a state or the District of Columbia, they will be denied the right to vote. This was one of the chief complaints made by Fitisemanu and the other plaintiffs in the case.
Advertisement Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch (standing second from the left) and Sonia Sotomayor (seated furthest left) are the only justices known to support overturning the Insular Cases.Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Fitisemanu v. U.S. challenged the constitutionality of the Insular Cases by arguing that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause grants U.S. citizenship to all people "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." As these territories are both a part of the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, the residents of the territories ought to be granted full access to that citizenship, the plaintiffs argued.
For years now, territorial residents have sought to loosen the grip of the Insular Cases or overturn them entirely through the courts. In each case, the courts have refused to do so.
There was some expectation that the Supreme Court may act differently on Fitisemanu after Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor declared in the case of Vaello-Madero v. U.S. that they would like to see the Insular Cases overturned.
"[It is] past time to acknowledge the gravity of this error and admit what we know to be true: The Insular Cases have no foundation in the Constitution and rest instead on racial stereotypes. They deserve no place in our law," Gorsuch wrote in a concurrence in Vaello-Madero.
In agreeing with Gorsuch that the Insular Cases should be overturned, Sotomayor called them "both odious and wrong" in her Vaello-Madero dissent.
But four of the nine Supreme Court justices must vote to take up a case. Clearly, there were not four votes to take up Fitisemanu. There were also no written dissents from the denial of the case.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
98 visitors
This is a real stunner by SCOTUS only 2 of the judges wanted to take the case and no matter how you look at it the ''Insular Laws'' are outdated, discriminatory, and racist.
Here are a few more links that may add more information to this situation.
It's interesting to note that the two judges, Gorsuch and Sotomayor are both experts in constitutional US/Indian law.
They are too busy sending us backwards to deal with reversing insane laws.
This court would make the very first court seem like liberals.
Stunning to say the least. And these insane laws actually are enforced.
Lol.
Overturning precedent is horrible and an assault on the Republic !
Precedent must be overturned!
Nice to see the sacredness of precedent argument lasted less than six months. Who could have predicted it.
How one-dimensional can an argument be? You distill this down to mere precedent and hold that precedent is the ONLY consideration when laws are changed?? By that reasoning you would argue that no law ever be changed.
The objection to the Roe v Wade overturn was not merely that it violated precedent but that it immediately took away contemporary, actively used, critical rights held by women for almost 50 years (the majority of state legislatures have dramatically restricted / outlawed abortions). Violation of precedent was a factor, not the basis of the objection.
In this case the objection is that these laws are obviously and profoundly discriminatory by race and are entirely outdated.
With your reasoning, you would object to the abolishment of slavery merely because it broke precedent.
Don't view the world in such simple terms; that is a sure way to get things wrong.
Sounds like someone is drowning in hyppcrisy
If they are going to be treated as less than, they should apply for independence.
Now that would have both houses of congress, DOJ and SCOTUS in a fricking uproar.
Think about how we use Guam and what for and the same with Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands.
Which begs the question. If these territories vote to position themselves with another mainland that recognizes them fully, the United States would be faced with its own China-Taiwan dilemma.
That would be interesting to say the least.
The ''other Samoa'' just 1/2 hour from American Samoa already has heavy Chinese investment.
We have a large military presence on Guam
Agreed. If they are denied a voice in the government to which they are subject, then they should form their own government. That was sort of the whole point of the US.
Kinda, but then again the ''Insular laws'' are part of the US, which of course throws a whole other light on the subject.
They are part, but perhaps we don't deserve for them to be. If we can't uphold our own ideals, territories we hold but to whom we disallow representation should be able to tell us to fuck off and go their own way.
Ha, both houses of congress, the military, and SCOTUS would melt down.
I hope they do. The US can't keep treating people of the territories like this without pushback.
Why would the SCOTUS even CONSIDER hearing the case? It wasn't referred to in the Constitution - afer all, isn't that the deciding factor now? If the residents of Samoa, which America considers to be an American territory, are not given the same status as other American citizens why don't they just tell America to f*** o** and become an independent nation? I suppose if they get SOME benefits from their present status they have a reason to continue being bought. I would say the same for all American "territories".
Seems for some dickheads that is the be all, end all.
I would like to see one or more of the seven who rejected the case give a detailed rationale for why they did so .
Thats not going to happen though.
You are right. An explanation is owed to the American public which is being snubbed. Especially if the court takes up some over supra-constitutional set or single cases. If the situation is such that the high court wants CONGRESS to manage its institutional duties to the territories of the United States—state it plainly and stop beating around the bush. Elsewise, who can blame citizens of the territories for suing to be heard in a court about a lack of basic civil rights-which span whole generations and lifespans.
Islanders are not the "redheaded step-children" of the United States!
You got that right, I didn't meet any redheads in Samoa.
No, it's not going to happen in this lifetime.
And yet for those who have lived up to this point and are living in this point - lifetimes have been wasted in a 'holding pattern' and suspension. Some of our states can be so "f—" cruel to their fellow human beings.
Huh?
That's on those that wasted their lifetime.
Do you mean that people can be cruel as states are simply an organizational construct.
The Supreme Court general rules on the constitutionality of laws that Congress passes, and to settle disputes between districts. 2 separate districts ruled against Samoans getting citizenship, the Obama state department fought against it in DC, this case in Utah just reinforced it.
What I mean and have said very clearly is that the US Law (s) Insular laws are bigoted and racist, no amount of dancing on the part of the US government or SCOTUS is going to change that.
It's that simple.
While Huffpost doesn't report such things, the majority of the 10th Circuit rejected the case without relying on the Insular cases. Besides the rather obvious Constiitional problems with the theory (the difference between the 14th and 13th Amendment demonstrate a clear difference in how the Constitution applies) the Court and the Biden Administration noted that Congress has, and has always had, the power to pass legislation on citizenship. So even if the Court heard the case, the Insular cases aren't even the main issue.
But it's easier for liberals to whine about the evil Supreme Court than wonder why a democratic congress never addressed the issue when even when it had a filibuster proof majority.
I wonder why the Obama administration fought against it in Tuaua V United States? And the 4 liberal justices didn’t grant them a hearing.
I wonder why the Obama administration fought against it in Tuaua V United States? And the 4 liberal justices didn’t grant them a hearing.
I don't know perhaps you should ask them. Either side that supports this is, IMO, completely wrong.
Perhaps you can explain why Samoans are US Nationals and other territory are US Citizens?
I wasn't aware that Gorsuch was a liberal.
Or why a republican congress never addressed the issue when they had a fillbuster proof majority? The laws have been on the books for 100 years.
Perhaps you can explain why Samoans are US nationals and other territories are US Citizens.
Here is a start:
Or why a republican congress never addressed the issue when they had a fillbuster proof majority?
The democrats had a filibuster proof majority 8 plus times in the last 100 years, can you point out the republicans filibuster majorities?
If this is true then what you're saying is that Republicans didn't bring it to the floor because they were 1. racist or 2. didn't give a shit about indigenous people.
Just to point out to you that I don't care if it's right or left not challenging this racist law. I pointed out that Gorsuch was one that wanted to take this case.
Now, I'll ask you again can you explain why Samoans are US Nationals and some of the other territories are US Citizens?
Which is what this case is all about.
No I can’t explain it, and it is a racist law! Democrats with a filibuster proof majority and the presidency on several occasions failed to change it due to blatant racism and you blame republicans. Priceless.
No surprise that you can't explain it but can babble on about it.
I didn't blame republicans but did point out that they chose not to do anything about a racist law. Which of course reflects on them the same way it reflects on dems.
And once again I pointed out that Gorsuch wanted the case and he certainly is a conservative.
Yet Democrats didn't address the issue. So which is it are they 1. racist or 2. didn't give a shit about indigenous people?
The comment was a question and was self-explanatory when I stated this:
If you need further explanation see comment 9.
Given the sophistry of the argument in the second paragraph of Comment 7, the question raised is why are congressional republicans such low-lifes that they would filibuster legislation that could resolve the issue presented?
Can you show where republicans have done that? Democrats have had filibuster proof majorities 8 plus times, why are democrat congressman so racist?
Not surprisingly, you're completely missing the point.
Laughable.
Not laughable, SAD! Who locked up the Japanese in concentration camps again? Their long history of racism is well documented.
This isn't about Internment camps it's about Samoa and the application of racist laws to US territories.
[deleted]
Heading to bed and locking the article. I'll open it again tomorrow.
The article is now open.
The issue with some members is once again Dem v Repub. This case and the application of the ''insular laws'' which are rooted in racism and white supremacy are still on the books and enforced in a country that claims all people are equal. Dancing around the obvious racist intent of these laws seems to be a game played by both sides and SCOTUS. The federal government can set the rules/laws for US citizenship but when those laws are based on racism why would the US then support them?
I hold both parties responsible for the massive miscarriage of justice and for avoiding the true meaning of the US Constitution. For over 100 years the laws have stood and have had adverse effects on the peoples of US territories and after the recent decision by SCOTUS will remain in effect making a mockery of what we, the US claim to be.
An illegal person can have a baby on US soil and they are considered citizens under US law, yet a person born in Samoa a US territory for over 100 years is not and cannot access all of the rights of true US citizenship. How can anyone square this obvious discrimination, The Samoan people serve in the US Military at a very high rate and Samoa and Guam are forward posts in the Pacific for the US Miliary with Samoa having the finest natural harbor in the Pacific. And as most of you know Guam has a large US military presence and that is being built upon with the concerns now in the Pacific.
If you are going to argue that the Dems are racist and have done nothing about this miscarriage of justice then you must argue that the same applies to the Repubs. The last 100 years are proof of this.
If you're going to argue this then argue why Samoans should or should not be US citizens not point fingers at one party or the other. Point your finger at the US for allowing this to be law in day and age.
I would laud your sudden embracing of bipartisanship if it wasn’t so laughably transparent. You blame republicans for literally everything you feel is wrong, but only one party has had the votes consistently over the last 100 years to change this law and have failed to do so.
as for discussing the law, it is wrong! Period! There is no reason for it to still be on the books.
Do you want to discuss the makeup of the Congress that passed this racist law?
Senate: Democrats 69 seats veto proof majority.
House: Democrats 262, 93 person majority
Presidency: Democrat
So it’s obvious it’s the republicans are equally at fault.
Do the Samoans get a say?
Why do we expect the courts to fix this when the Samoan people don’t? Is this another case of, “We know what’s best for you, just sit down and be quiet?”
More assumptions by you. Once again stick with the subject matter which I have explained to you. You are not one that should complain or mention bipartisanship since it isn't in your vocabulary.
Yes, that is all well-known and a matter of record.
It's obvious that Samoa or any of the other territories do not get a say in it.
The arguments I've seen here seem sort of ridiculous. Both parties could have done something about this at various points, had they wanted to, but neither have. Logically, neither party wants to do anything about this injustice for whatever reason but don't say why. Presumably because it's a bad, self serving reason they can't admit to so, instead, they put the blame on the other party, hoping to divert attention and accountability. You all seem to be continuing their behavior by doing the same thing. Blaming the other side when it seems clear that both sides, or all three branches are to blame for this.
Why don't we all recognize that all of them are to blame?
If you read my comment 9 and others you'll see that is exactly what I did.
The other 'thought' process : I located this this AM. Notably, I am not posting the first part of the article due to its length. This read starts about 3 paragraphs down or so in the article:
This is very interesting. Seems some in American Samoa like their status quo for the 'insulation' from the problems of the world. Very interesting. I hope we can discuss it!