top of page

Cases relating to 'insular' citizenship should not be taken Biden administration ask Supreme Court

Aug 31, 2022
1 min read

Earlier this month, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to overlook a century-old ruling known as the "Insular Cases."


Image by Mark Thomas from Pixabay

In the Insular Cases, the Constitution covers only incorporated territories, leaving unincorporated territories with only partial constitutional rights. As part of her response to Fitisemanu v. United States, the solicitor general said the suit would be ineffective for reevaluating Insular Cases.


In their complaint, John Fitisemanu, Pale Tuli, and Rosavita Tuli argue that residents of U.S. territories are denied citizenship rights. Due to their birthplaces in American Samoa, an unincorporated territory of the United States, the three individuals have been denied American citizenship.


According to Prelogar's brief, text, context, historical practice, and precedent support the conclusion that 'the United States' does not include American Samoa under that provision.


"The multi-step approach in the Insular Cases is therefore irrelevant. Because of this, petitioners emphasize that this case is not an appropriate vehicle for reexamining those cases.


According to the administration, the court should not take up the case since American Samoa's legislature opposes U.S. citizenship. Despite American Samoa's opposition to giving American citizenship without consent, the American Samoan Legislature passed a unanimous resolution opposing it.


A court decision to hold that U.S. citizenship applies to all people born in American Samoa under the Citizenship Clause would eliminate the chance for American Samoans to consider the issue democratically, according to Prelogar in the government brief.


31 August 2022

 
 
READ NEXT

Heading 2

Disclaimer:
 

The views and opinions expressed in the articles or Interviews published in this magazine are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Capitol Times magazine or Capitol Times Media , its editors, or its staff. The authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles. The magazine strives to provide a platform for diverse voices and opinions, and we value the principle of free expression. The magazine assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of the articles. In no event shall the Capitol Times magazine or Capitol Times Media be liable for any special, direct, indirect, or incidental damages. Furthermore, the inclusion of advertisements or sponsored content in Capitol Times magazine does not constitute an endorsement or guarantee of the products, services, or views promoted by the advertisers. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and exercise caution when making decisions based on advertisements or sponsored content featured in this publication.

Thank you for reading and engaging with our publication. Your feedback is valuable to us as we continue to provide a platform for thought-provoking content and diverse perspectives.

 

Capitol Times Media is a privately owned and independently operated media that publish Capitol Times Magazine. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to the United States government, the U.S. Capitol, Congress, or any federal, state, or local government agency. Content published by Capitol Times Magazine includes both editorial content and sponsored or paid content.


© 2026 by Capitol Times Media LLC - Privacy Policy

bottom of page