Insular Cases

Definition of Insular Cases

The Insular Cases were a series of US Supreme Court decisions made in the early 20th century regarding the legal status of the former Spanish colonies of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. There were many unanswered legal questions when the United States suddenly became an imperial power. Territories like Louisiana had been incorporated territories, but these new possessions were unincorporated territories.

The US Supreme Court had to decide how the laws of the United States applied to these lands controlled by the US but not an equal part of it, but also how the Constitution applied to the inhabitants of these territories.

Bureau of Insular Affairs

Why were they called the "Insular Cases"? That was because the Bureau of Insular Affairs oversaw the territories in question under the Secretary of War. The bureau was created in December 1898 specifically for that purpose. "Insular" was used to denote an area that was not a part of a state or a federal district, like Washington, DC.

Although most commonly referred to as the "Bureau of Insular Affairs," it went through several name changes. It was created as the Division of Customs and Insular Affairs before changing to the "Division of Insular Affairs" in 1900 and "Bureau of Insular Affairs" in 1902. In 1939 its duties were placed under the Department of the Interior, with the creation of the Division of Territories and island possessions.

Fig. 2 - Puerto Rico was one of the territories the United States acquired after the Spanish American War.

Insular Cases: History

The United States Constitution was set up to govern a country that had removed itself from imperial power but was silent on the legality of becoming an imperial power. The Treaty of Paris between the United States and Spain ended the Spanish-American War, and ceded the territories in question, answered some questions, but others were left open. The Foraker Act of 1900 more clearly defined US control of Puerto Rico.

Additionally, the United States administered Cuba for a brief period from the end of the war until its independence in 1902. It was up to the Supreme Court to analyze the law and determine what it meant to be a resident of these colonies. Were they a part of the US or not?

Citizenship Questions

The Treaty of Paris allowed those residents of the former Spanish colonies born in Spain to retain their Spanish citizenship. The Foraker Act similarly allowed Spanish citizens living in Puerto Rico to remain residents of Spain or become citizens of Puerto Rico. The Foraker Act's treatment of Puerto Rico allowed the United States to appoint its government and said that those officials must swear an oath to both the US Constitution and the laws of Puerto Rico, but never told the residents that they were citizens of anything but Puerto Rico.

Controversial Issues Summarized

The question of whether or not the U.S. Constitution would apply to new territories acquired by the United States was a controversial issue due to several reasons:

1. Legal and Political Status: The acquisition of new territories presented a novel legal question: Were these territories to be considered foreign or domestic according to the Constitution? The Constitution was not explicitly clear on this matter. If these territories were considered domestic, they would be under full constitutional protection. If considered foreign, they wouldn't be.

2. Cultural and Racial Factors: Many inhabitants of the newly acquired territories were of different racial, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds than the majority population of the mainland United States. There was concern among some U.S. politicians and citizens about integrating these populations into the U.S. and granting them full constitutional rights.

3. Economic Considerations: There were economic motivations to keep these territories in a separate legal status. For example, imposing U.S. laws, including labor laws and tariffs, could have significant economic implications.

4. Colonial Ambitions vs. Democratic Ideals: The U.S. had prided itself on being a nation that opposed colonialism. However, the acquisition of territories from Spain after the Spanish-American War made the U.S. a colonial power. Applying the Constitution fully could pave the way for statehood for these territories, which many Americans were not prepared to accept.

Insular Cases: Dates

Scholars of history and law often point to nine cases from 1901 as the "Insular Cases." However, there is disagreement on what other, if any, later decisions should be considered to be part of the Insular Cases. Legal scholar Efrén Rivera Ramos believes that the list should include cases up to Balzac v. Porto Rico in 1922.

He notes that this is the last case in which the doctrine of territorial incorporation developed by the insular cases continues to evolve and be described. In contrast, later cases mentioned by other scholars only deal with applying the doctrine to specific instances.

One key figure of the Insular Cases of this period was Henry Billings Brown (1836–1913) who was an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1891 to 1906. He is most famous for his majority opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), a landmark decision upholding racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine.

In this case, Brown wrote the majority opinion that upheld state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal," a ruling that played a key role in perpetuating racial segregation until it was finally overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

Fig. 3 - Henry Billings Brown (1836–1913) was an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1891 to 1906.

Insular Cases: Rulings

Downes v. Bidwell and De Lima v. Bidwell were two linked cases about fees charged on imports from Puerto Rico entering the port of New York, with repercussions for the entire legal relationship of the United States with the unincorporated territories.

In De Lima, import tariffs had been charged as though Puerto Rico was a foreign country, whereas in Downes, a customs fee mentioned explicitly in the Foraker Act had been charged. Both argued that the Treaty of Paris had made Puerto Rico a part of the US.

Downes specifically argued that the Foraker Act was unconstitutional to put fees on imports from Puerto Rico because the Constitution's Uniformity Clause stated that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" and no states paid import fees from one state to another.

The court agreed that Puerto Rico could be considered a foreign country for tariff purposes but disagreed that the Uniformity Clause applied. How could this be so?

Territorial Incorporation

Out of these decisions came the new concept of territorial incorporation. When the Supreme Court outlined the doctrine of Territorial Incorporation, they decided that there was a difference between territories intended to become states of the Union and territories that Congress had no intention of allowing to enter.

These unincorporated territories were not protected by the Constitution automatically, and it was up to Congress to decide which elements of the Constitution would apply to such unincorporated territories on a case-by-case basis. This meant that citizens of these territories could not be considered citizens of the United States and only had as many constitutional protections as Congress chose to give.

Early decisions outlining this doctrine contain overtly racially discriminatory language explaining the justices' view that the inhabitants of these territories may be racially or culturally incompatible with the US legal system.

Residents of Puerto Rico would later receive US citizenship by the Jones-Shaforth Act in 1917. The act was signed by Woodrow Wilson so that Puerto Ricans could join the US Army for WWI and later were even part of the draft. Because this citizenship is by an act of Congress instead of the Constitution, it can be revoked, and not all constitutional protections apply to Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico.

Insular Cases Significance

The effects of the Insular Cases rulings are still felt over a century later. In 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of incorporation in the case of United States v. Vaello-Madero, where a Puerto Rican man who had been living in New York was ordered to pay back $28,000 in disability benefits after he moved back to Puerto Rico, because he was not entitled to the US national benefit for disabled persons.

The complicated legal status created by the Insular Cases resulted in territories like Puerto Rico and Guam where residents may be US Citizens that can be drafted into war but cannot vote in US elections, yet also experience differences such as essentially not having to pay US income tax. The cases were controversial at the time, with many instances of a five to four vote.

The biased reasoning for the decisions remains controversial today, with even lawyers arguing for the United States in United States v. Vaello-Madero admitting "some of the reasoning and rhetoric there is obviously anathema."