Insular Cases The Insular Cases are a group of‐some fourteen decisions of the period 1901–1904 that involve the application of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to overseas territories (see Territories and New States). The cases arose after the United States acquired island territories through the treaty ending the Spanish‐American War (1898). The nation's determination to become a world power, as evidenced by the war and the acquisition of foreign territories, received overwhelming popular endorsement in the presidential election of 1900. The Insular Cases translated the political dispute into the vocabulary of the Constitution, with the Supreme Court eventually echoing the popular sentiment.

Two competing positions lay behind the arguments before the Court. One opinion, largely racially motivated, was that the people of the new territories were unfit to become citizens—a conclusion that foreclosed the possibility of statehood and relegated the people to permanent territorial status (see Citizenship; Race and Racism). The other view was the century‐old tradition that all territory would eventually become states.

The Insular Cases presented three questions of constitutional law and statutory construction: (1) whether the national government had the power to acquire territories by treaty; (2) whether certain statutes applied to territories; and (3) whether the Bill of Rights applied automatically to any territory upon acquisition by the United States. In De Lima v. Bidwell (1901) the Court confirmed that the nation had the power to acquire territory, pointing for support to the long history of acquisitions.

The Court also considered whether duties could be imposed on goods shipped between Puerto Rico and the United States. For goods imported into the United States, the Court avoided the constitutional question by relying upon language in the Dingley Tariff Act (1897), which imposed tariffs on “all articles imported from foreign countries.” In De Lima, Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote for the Court that Puerto Rico ceased to be “foreign” once ceded to the United States by treaty. Hence, the statute did not apply to Puerto Rico.

The Court could not, however, avoid the constitutional question for goods exported to Puerto Rico. So long as the United States military governed there, exports could be taxed under the war powers of Congress (Dooley v. United States, 1901). Once the special powers of the military ended, however, any imposition of tariffs seemed to violate the Constitution's requirement that duties be “uniform throughout the United States” (Art. I, sec. 8). In Downes v. Bidwell (1901) Brown reiterated that Puerto Rico was not “foreign”; but he reasoned that it was also not part of “the United States,” a term that meant only the states themselves. Justice Edward D. White and three other justices concurred but rejected Brown's constitutional categories as being too restrictive of the nation's powers in world affairs. White concluded that constitutional limitations applied to a territory only after Congress had taken action to “incorporate” the territory into the United States. Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller rejected White's nebulous category between foreign and incorporated, reasoning that once a territory came under the nation's sovereign power, it became part of “the United States.”

Later cases, involving the Bill of Rights, revealed a movement away from Brown's position to White's, which is still the prevailing view. Brown continued to find modest restrictions in the Constitution itself. For example, he held in Hawaii v. Mankichi (1903) that, in the absence of congressional action, only those rights that were “fundamental in their nature” would apply (p. 218). Justice White agreed with the conclusion that there was no requirement for indictment by a grand jury or a unanimous jury. But he again concluded that because Congress had not incorporated Hawaii into the United States, no part of the Bill of Rights applied.

A majority of the Court finally accepted the incorporation doctrine in Dorr v. United States (1904). Justice William R. Day noted that the natives of the Philippines were not fit for jury trials and that Congress need not accord them that right until it chose to incorporate the islands.

The cases present myriad justifications and tortured reasoning. Their clear import is that the justices wanted to allow the president and Congress the greatest possible freedom in world affairs. Many people thought that the opinions reflected the election results, since in the election of 1906 the voters had soundly rejected the Democrats' call to repudiate the acquisition of overseas territories. But the cases show more than a politically savvy Court; they also anticipate the later debate over the application of the Bill of Rights to the states, when “incorporation” and “fundamental rights” would again be operative phrases. The Court's opinions therefore represent tentative, early arguments in what would become half a century of debate about the reach of the Bill of Rights.

Bibliography

James E. Kerr , The Insular Cases: The Role of the Judiciary in American Expansionism (1982).

Walter F. Pratt Jr.

Insular Cases. In twenty‐four cases decided between 1901 and 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not apply automatically to territories acquired by the nation. Badly divided initially, the Court later unanimously held that the Constitution applied only after Congress had “incorporated” a territory into the United States.

Following the Spanish‐American War, the United States acquired the islands of Puerto Rico and the Philippines (thus the name “Insular” cases). Almost immediately, a dispute arose over whether the national government could tax goods imported from its newly acquired territory. The dispute involved two sources. First, the Constitution required that duties be uniform throughout “the United States”; second, tariff laws imposed tariffs on goods imported from “foreign” countries. If the island territories were part of the United States, goods imported from them could not be taxed. From that mundane problem emerged constitutional issues of great significance, in particular whether the Bill of Rights applied to the newly acquired territories. Behind the language lay issues of race and cultural hegemony: Were people in the territories “fit” for constitutional protections? Should the United States impose its constitutional values on other cultures?

In the most important of the early cases, Downes v. Bidwell (1901), the Court failed to agree on a rationale for its conclusion that a duty could be imposed on goods imported from Puerto Rico because it was not part of “the United States.” In announcing the Court's conclusion, Justice Henry Billings Brown explained that a territory could not become a “state” until Congress said it was. Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller dissented, reasoning that the Constitution applied to every action taken by Congress. Between those two positions fell the concurring opinion of Justice Edward D. White, who proposed that the Constitution applied only to territories that had been “incorporated” into the United States and that incorporation could come only from an act of Congress. The entire Court eventually adopted White's interpretation, first in a majority opinion, Dorr v. United States (1904), and later in a unanimous decision, Balzac v. Puerto Rico (1922).

The Insular case decisions placed the Supreme Court's imprimatur on overseas expansion, allowing the president and Congress great flexibility in international affairs. Never having been overruled, the doctrine of the Insular cases has continuing vitality, especially in the efforts to enforce U.S. laws outside its borders and in the U.S. involvement in international organizations.
See also Expansionism.

Bibliography

James E. Kerr , The Insular Cases: The Role of the Judiciary in American Expansionism, 1982.

Walter F. Pratt Jr.

INSULAR CASES

INSULAR CASES. Following its victory in the Spanish-American War (1898), the United States acquired Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. In the Insular Cases (1901–1922), the U.S. Supreme Court determined the constitutional and political status of the new territories. In De Lima v. Bidwell (1901), a customs dispute, a 5-to-4 majority ruled that Puerto Rico was not a "foreign country" for tariff purposes. In subsequent cases, the Court addressed the territories' relationship to the United States and whether "the Constitution follows the flag"; that is, whether and how constitutional provisions applied to these acquisitions. Many of the later cases were also decided by divided Courts, reflecting disagreement about the constitutional issues under-lying American expansionism.

The "incorporation" approach emerged as a central doctrine in the Court's decisions. This principle held that incorporated territories—those that Congress intended to become part of the United States and, eventually, states—were directly protected by the Constitution as written. However, it also held that only a limited set of rights applied to unincorporated possessions that Congress had not yet determined to make permanent parts of the Union. Thus, in Rassmussen v. United States (1905), the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment required jury trials in Alaskan criminal cases because Alaska had been incorporated into the United States, while in Dorr v. United States (1904), it determined that jury trials were not required in the Philippine Islands, because they had not been incorporated. Puerto Rico, for which the doctrine of the Insular Cases would have the most enduring consequences, was unincorporated, according to Downes v. Bidwell (1901).Thus, it was treated as subject to the political authority of Congress, unrestrained by the full protections of the Constitution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kerr, James. The Insular Cases: The Role of the Judiciary in American Expansionism. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1982.

Ramos, Efren Rivera. "The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901–1922)." Revista Juridica Universidad de Puerto Rico 65 (1996): 225–328.

Torruella, Juan R. The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: The Doctrine of Separate and Unequal. Río Piedras: University of Puerto Rico, 1985.

Gabriel J.Chin

DianaYoon

See alsoGuam ; Hawaii ; Puerto Rico ; Territories of the United States .