Welcome to Stuff You Missed in History Class, a production of iHeartRadio. Hello, and welcome to the podcast.

Welcome to Stuff You Missed in History Class, a production of iHeartRadio. Hello, and welcome to the podcast.

I'm Tracy V.

I'm Tracy V.

Wilson and I'm Holly Frying. Today we're going to talk about some US Supreme Court cases, although not comical ones like Nicks versus Headen, which we covered recently and was about tomatoes. We are going to be talking more about tariffs though this time. It's a collection of cases that followed the Spanish American War, and these cases together limited the rights of people living in certain US territories. These cases still stand today. They still affect the lives and civil rights of people in places like American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. So people who were born in all of these territories, with the exception of Americans, are considered US citizens by birth, but while living on any of these any of these islands territories, they don't have the same constitutional rights or representation in Congress as citizens who live in one of the fifty States. Some of those court cases involved the Philippines also, that was a US territory at the time but has since become independent. So together these cases are known as the Insular Cases, with insular meaning related to islands, and they were in the news last year because the US Supreme Court declined to her case that was challenging them. Before we start with this, I want to note there's a whole range of opinion in all of these places about their relationships to the United States, Like, for example, there are American Samoans who think that they should be considered US citizens from birth, but then others who think that would erase their existing culture and traditions. Or as another example, there is a movement for Puerto Rican statehood that's been going on for decades, but there are also people who opposed that movement, with some of the opponents advocating instead for an independent Puerto Rico. So this episode is really focused on the court cases and the context around them. It is not about the lived experiences and opinions of the people living in all of these territories. I don't think the two of us are the best people to try to like embody that no, and even if we were, I feel like that is a podcast of its own and not an episode of ARM.

Wilson and I'm Holly Frying. Today we're going to talk about some US Supreme Court cases, although not comical ones like Nicks versus Headen, which we covered recently and was about tomatoes. We are going to be talking more about tariffs though this time. It's a collection of cases that followed the Spanish American War, and these cases together limited the rights of people living in certain US territories. These cases still stand today. They still affect the lives and civil rights of people in places like American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. So people who were born in all of these territories, with the exception of Americans, are considered US citizens by birth, but while living on any of these any of these islands territories, they don't have the same constitutional rights or representation in Congress as citizens who live in one of the fifty States. Some of those court cases involved the Philippines also, that was a US territory at the time but has since become independent. So together these cases are known as the Insular Cases, with insular meaning related to islands, and they were in the news last year because the US Supreme Court declined to her case that was challenging them. Before we start with this, I want to note there's a whole range of opinion in all of these places about their relationships to the United States, Like, for example, there are American Samoans who think that they should be considered US citizens from birth, but then others who think that would erase their existing culture and traditions. Or as another example, there is a movement for Puerto Rican statehood that's been going on for decades, but there are also people who opposed that movement, with some of the opponents advocating instead for an independent Puerto Rico. So this episode is really focused on the court cases and the context around them. It is not about the lived experiences and opinions of the people living in all of these territories. I don't think the two of us are the best people to try to like embody that no, and even if we were, I feel like that is a podcast of its own and not an episode of ARM.

Not an episode of ours for sure.

Not an episode of ours for sure.

Before we talk about these cases, we need to set the stage on how the US had approached its territories before the Spanish American War. The original borders of the United States were set under the seventeen eighty three Treaty of Paris, which formally ended the Revolutionary War between Britain and its North American colonies. This treaty did not acknowledge the indigenous names and peoples who had been in North America for thousands of years prior to europeans arrival, or contain any reference to borders of their own lands and territory. For a time, the Articles of Confederation formed the basis for the US government. These were ultimately replaced by the US Constitution, which went into effect on March fourth, seventeen eighty nine. The Constitution didn't include anything specifically about adding new territory to the United States, but it did include language about adding states. An Article four, Section three quote, New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union. But no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of the Congress. Section three also incl language about territory that was not considered part of a state, quote, the Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. And nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States or any particular state. Soon, new states were being added to the Union. The first state that wasn't one of the thirteen original colonies was Vermont in seventeen ninety one. Kentucky became a state in seventeen ninety two from land that had previously been considered part of Virginia. Tennessee became a state four years later, formed from the Southwest Territory that was land that North Carolina had ceded to the federal government. Ohio joined the Union in eighteen oh three and was formed from part of the Northwest Territory. With the exception of Vermont, which had considered itself an independent republic before becoming a state, these newly added states had all been formed from organized, incorporated territory that was already considered to be within the US borders under the Treaty of Paris. So incorporated in this case means that the territory is considered to be fully part of the US under the Constitution, and the only parts of the Constitution that don't apply to incorporated territory are articles that specifically apply to the states. Organized means that Congress had passed an organic act or a body of laws establishing a government and usually a bill of rights for the territory. So, for example, the Northwest Territory was unorganized before Congress passed the Northwest Ordinances. The Northwest Ordinances of seventeen eighty seven also outlined a process for the territory to be admitted into the Union as no less than three and no more than five states. When the United States started acquiring new terrance, that new territory was also incorporated. The first big addition of land to the United States was the Louisiana Purchase in eighteen oh three. The Treaty of Session that was part of the Louisiana Purchase agreement said, quote, the inhabitants of the cated Territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States. Florida was also incorporated when it became part of the United States under the Adam Zonice Treaty, which took effect in eighteen twenty one. States formed from these territories were added to the Union, following the same basic template that had been outlined in the Northwest Ordinance of seventeen eighty seven. As the nineteenth century continued, the United States approach to expansion was described as manifest destiny. That's a term first used in Right Blace in eighteen forty five as part of an argument that the United States should annex the Republic of Texas. This came to mean that the United States was destined to expand across the whole of North America, and this idea framed the United States expansion as necessary and inevitable, and as the nation's duty. This also was connected to a series of removals, wars, and genocidal policies against the indigenous nations of North America, in which tens of thousands of people were forced to leave their homelands and move to land known as Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River, primarily in what is now Oklahoma. Support for the philosophy of manifest destiny was not as universal as it sometimes described. There were people within and outside of the US government who argued against such aggressive expansion, and there were people of a range of backgrounds, races, ethnicities, and religions who didn't want the place they were already living to be annexed or purchased by the United States for all kinds of reasons. Thousands of Indigenous people also died as a result of the force removals that were involved in making way for this expansion. But the underlying assumption was that any territory the US was acquiring would become one or more states. Assumption is not even a strong enough word. It was obvious and unquestioned that newly acquired territory would be admitted into the Union as states. There were debates about whether slavery would be allowed in newly organized territory and newly admitted states, and a number of compromises and appeasements maintained a balance between slave states and free States in Congress, but there was really no debate about whether this new territory was on a path to statehood. There was no sense at all that a territory could be unincorporated. The only real exception to this pattern involved the islands that were claimed under the Guano Islands Act of eighteen fifty six. This act allowed US citizens to claim uninhabited islands as sources of guano or bird poop, so these islands didn't need to be incorporated they did not have a permanent human population. Alaska's status was also kind of vague for a while after the US purchased it from Russia in eighteen sixty seven. The US made this purchase just two years after the end of the Civil War, it was still in the middle of trying to rebuild itself. In Secretary of State William H. Stewart's decision to buy Alaska was widely criticized and lampooned. Alaska was organized as the District of Alaska in eighteen eighty four, but at the very end of the nineteenth century, the United States acquired territory that it didn't necessarily want to incorporate. We're going to get to that after we have a sponsor break. The United States approach to its territories really shifted during and after the Spanish American War. This war evolved from Cuba's struggle for independence from Spain, and it was also influenced by sensationalized news reporting in the United States and the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor on February fifteenth, eighteen ninety eight. The Treaty of Paris that formally ended the Spanish American War was signed on December tenth, eighteen ninety eight. It recognized Cuba as an independent nation while giving the United States control of Puerto Rico and Guam. Under the treaty, the United States was also allowed to purchase the Philippines from Spain, which it did, although the Philippines had declared its own independence, and the US takeover of the Philippines sparked the two year Philippine American War. There are many treaties of Paris. This is obviously a different one than the one that formerly ended the Revolutionary War. Paris is where all the cool treaties happen, where we always go to negotiate a peace. I mean, yeah, any excuse to go to Paris. While the Spanish American War was ongoing, the United States had also annexed Hawaii. For some very brief context on that, in eighteen seventy five, the US and the Kingdom of Hawaii had signed a reciprocity treaty that allowed Hawaii to freely export goods like sugar.

Before we talk about these cases, we need to set the stage on how the US had approached its territories before the Spanish American War. The original borders of the United States were set under the seventeen eighty three Treaty of Paris, which formally ended the Revolutionary War between Britain and its North American colonies. This treaty did not acknowledge the indigenous names and peoples who had been in North America for thousands of years prior to europeans arrival, or contain any reference to borders of their own lands and territory. For a time, the Articles of Confederation formed the basis for the US government. These were ultimately replaced by the US Constitution, which went into effect on March fourth, seventeen eighty nine. The Constitution didn't include anything specifically about adding new territory to the United States, but it did include language about adding states. An Article four, Section three quote, New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union. But no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of the Congress. Section three also incl language about territory that was not considered part of a state, quote, the Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. And nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States or any particular state. Soon, new states were being added to the Union. The first state that wasn't one of the thirteen original colonies was Vermont in seventeen ninety one. Kentucky became a state in seventeen ninety two from land that had previously been considered part of Virginia. Tennessee became a state four years later, formed from the Southwest Territory that was land that North Carolina had ceded to the federal government. Ohio joined the Union in eighteen oh three and was formed from part of the Northwest Territory. With the exception of Vermont, which had considered itself an independent republic before becoming a state, these newly added states had all been formed from organized, incorporated territory that was already considered to be within the US borders under the Treaty of Paris. So incorporated in this case means that the territory is considered to be fully part of the US under the Constitution, and the only parts of the Constitution that don't apply to incorporated territory are articles that specifically apply to the states. Organized means that Congress had passed an organic act or a body of laws establishing a government and usually a bill of rights for the territory. So, for example, the Northwest Territory was unorganized before Congress passed the Northwest Ordinances. The Northwest Ordinances of seventeen eighty seven also outlined a process for the territory to be admitted into the Union as no less than three and no more than five states. When the United States started acquiring new terrance, that new territory was also incorporated. The first big addition of land to the United States was the Louisiana Purchase in eighteen oh three. The Treaty of Session that was part of the Louisiana Purchase agreement said, quote, the inhabitants of the cated Territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States. Florida was also incorporated when it became part of the United States under the Adam Zonice Treaty, which took effect in eighteen twenty one. States formed from these territories were added to the Union, following the same basic template that had been outlined in the Northwest Ordinance of seventeen eighty seven. As the nineteenth century continued, the United States approach to expansion was described as manifest destiny. That's a term first used in Right Blace in eighteen forty five as part of an argument that the United States should annex the Republic of Texas. This came to mean that the United States was destined to expand across the whole of North America, and this idea framed the United States expansion as necessary and inevitable, and as the nation's duty. This also was connected to a series of removals, wars, and genocidal policies against the indigenous nations of North America, in which tens of thousands of people were forced to leave their homelands and move to land known as Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River, primarily in what is now Oklahoma. Support for the philosophy of manifest destiny was not as universal as it sometimes described. There were people within and outside of the US government who argued against such aggressive expansion, and there were people of a range of backgrounds, races, ethnicities, and religions who didn't want the place they were already living to be annexed or purchased by the United States for all kinds of reasons. Thousands of Indigenous people also died as a result of the force removals that were involved in making way for this expansion. But the underlying assumption was that any territory the US was acquiring would become one or more states. Assumption is not even a strong enough word. It was obvious and unquestioned that newly acquired territory would be admitted into the Union as states. There were debates about whether slavery would be allowed in newly organized territory and newly admitted states, and a number of compromises and appeasements maintained a balance between slave states and free States in Congress, but there was really no debate about whether this new territory was on a path to statehood. There was no sense at all that a territory could be unincorporated. The only real exception to this pattern involved the islands that were claimed under the Guano Islands Act of eighteen fifty six. This act allowed US citizens to claim uninhabited islands as sources of guano or bird poop, so these islands didn't need to be incorporated they did not have a permanent human population. Alaska's status was also kind of vague for a while after the US purchased it from Russia in eighteen sixty seven. The US made this purchase just two years after the end of the Civil War, it was still in the middle of trying to rebuild itself. In Secretary of State William H. Stewart's decision to buy Alaska was widely criticized and lampooned. Alaska was organized as the District of Alaska in eighteen eighty four, but at the very end of the nineteenth century, the United States acquired territory that it didn't necessarily want to incorporate. We're going to get to that after we have a sponsor break. The United States approach to its territories really shifted during and after the Spanish American War. This war evolved from Cuba's struggle for independence from Spain, and it was also influenced by sensationalized news reporting in the United States and the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor on February fifteenth, eighteen ninety eight. The Treaty of Paris that formally ended the Spanish American War was signed on December tenth, eighteen ninety eight. It recognized Cuba as an independent nation while giving the United States control of Puerto Rico and Guam. Under the treaty, the United States was also allowed to purchase the Philippines from Spain, which it did, although the Philippines had declared its own independence, and the US takeover of the Philippines sparked the two year Philippine American War. There are many treaties of Paris. This is obviously a different one than the one that formerly ended the Revolutionary War. Paris is where all the cool treaties happen, where we always go to negotiate a peace. I mean, yeah, any excuse to go to Paris. While the Spanish American War was ongoing, the United States had also annexed Hawaii. For some very brief context on that, in eighteen seventy five, the US and the Kingdom of Hawaii had signed a reciprocity treaty that allowed Hawaii to freely export goods like sugar.

To the US.

To the US.

In exchange, the US took control of an area known as Puuloa, now home to the Pearl Harbor Naval Base. This treaty led to a huge explosion in the sugar industry in Hawaii, driven by US business interests, which made the Hawaiian economy increasingly dependent on these exports. Then, in eighteen ninety three, Sandford Dole, a lawyer who was born in Hawaii to American parents, led a committee of sugar planters and other American businessmen to overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy with the backing of the US military. Dole petitioned the US to annex Hawaii in eighteen ninety four, and one reason the US did so four years later was to ensure that it did not lose control of Pearl Harbor while fighting a war with Spain. That is, like the most brief abridged synopsis, and we're about to have another one because then in eighteen ninety nine, the US took control of part of the Samoan archipelago again incredibly briefly. In the nineteenth century, Germany, Britain, and the US all established business interests in Samoa and became heavily involved in Samoan politics. Each of these nations backed different political factions, and when a civil war began in eighteen eighty nine, one side was backed by the US and the other was backed by Germany. The first phase of fighting ended in eighteen eighty ten, nine, mostly because most of the Western powers ships were either damaged or destroyed in a cyclone. Violence resumed in eighteen ninety three, continuing for about a year, again with Germany and the US backing opposing factions. Then, when Marito lal Peppe, leader of Samoa, died in eighteen ninety eight, the Chief Justice who issued the decision on who his successor would be was an American citizen, so a lot of Samoans and Germans in Samoa opposed this decision. This led to renewed hostilities. Ultimately, Britain, the United States, and Germany negotiated the Tripartite Convention without the involvement of Samoans, and this partitioned the archipelago between the United States and Germany. Just as a note, German Samoa was placed under control of New Zealand after World War One. It became independent in nineteen sixty two. The US portion still a US territory. So by eighteen ninety nine, the US had taken control of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, Hawaii, and part of Samoa, and it had a number of reasons to want access to territory in the Caribbean and the Pacific. Many of these islands had strategic military importance and could also serve as refueling points for trading ships. Investors saw range of agricultural and commercial opportunities. This was also happening as the Panama Canal was being built, a project that the US took over just a few years after taking control of these new territories, so people were seeing new potential for international shipping. There was also an argument for the US to take over these islands that was explicitly racist, that they were not capable of governing themselves, so the United States needed to take them over, an argument not to keep control of all of these islands was also racist. There were basically people who did it want islands full of people who were predominantly indigenous or Hispanic to suddenly become US citizens. In some cases, religious prejudice was also a factor, since some of these areas were predominantly Catholic. This can seem like an odd argument considering that the US had already incorporated a lot of territory in North America that had previously been colonized by Spain and had some demographic similarities to these islands, like under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican American War in eighteen forty eight, Mexico ceded more than half its territory to the US. People living there had been given a year to decide if they wanted to become US citizens, and by the time the Spanish American War ended, multiple states had been formed from that territory. But as an example, when California became a state in eighteen fifty, formed from territory that had been part of Mexico, it had a population of about ninety two thousand people. Meanwhile, at the end of the Spanish American War, the population of Puerto Rico was more than ten times that, and there were roughly seven million people living in the Philippines. The entire United States population at this point was about seventy six million people, So there were a lot of people who just completely freaked out about the idea that if the Philippines became a state, Filipinos would make up almost ten percent of the population of the United States. Also, with the exception of Puerto Rico, these newly acquired islands were geographically very far from continental North America, and that added to the perception that they were more foreign than something like the southwestern part of the continent was Also, to be clear, we're not suggesting that racism and prejudice were directed only at the people in these newly acquired island territories, or that everyone living in the continental US had the same constitutional rights at this point as exact samples. After the US Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment had granted citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the United States and subject to US jurisdiction, and the fifteenth Amendment had given black men the right to vote, but in practice, many black men could not freely exercise their right to vote, and women did not have a constitutional right to vote at all. Native Americans were not considered US citizens, and immigrants from many Asian countries were banned from becoming citizens. So the idea that the US might apply constitutional rights and protections only to some people also was not.

In exchange, the US took control of an area known as Puuloa, now home to the Pearl Harbor Naval Base. This treaty led to a huge explosion in the sugar industry in Hawaii, driven by US business interests, which made the Hawaiian economy increasingly dependent on these exports. Then, in eighteen ninety three, Sandford Dole, a lawyer who was born in Hawaii to American parents, led a committee of sugar planters and other American businessmen to overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy with the backing of the US military. Dole petitioned the US to annex Hawaii in eighteen ninety four, and one reason the US did so four years later was to ensure that it did not lose control of Pearl Harbor while fighting a war with Spain. That is, like the most brief abridged synopsis, and we're about to have another one because then in eighteen ninety nine, the US took control of part of the Samoan archipelago again incredibly briefly. In the nineteenth century, Germany, Britain, and the US all established business interests in Samoa and became heavily involved in Samoan politics. Each of these nations backed different political factions, and when a civil war began in eighteen eighty nine, one side was backed by the US and the other was backed by Germany. The first phase of fighting ended in eighteen eighty ten, nine, mostly because most of the Western powers ships were either damaged or destroyed in a cyclone. Violence resumed in eighteen ninety three, continuing for about a year, again with Germany and the US backing opposing factions. Then, when Marito lal Peppe, leader of Samoa, died in eighteen ninety eight, the Chief Justice who issued the decision on who his successor would be was an American citizen, so a lot of Samoans and Germans in Samoa opposed this decision. This led to renewed hostilities. Ultimately, Britain, the United States, and Germany negotiated the Tripartite Convention without the involvement of Samoans, and this partitioned the archipelago between the United States and Germany. Just as a note, German Samoa was placed under control of New Zealand after World War One. It became independent in nineteen sixty two. The US portion still a US territory. So by eighteen ninety nine, the US had taken control of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, Hawaii, and part of Samoa, and it had a number of reasons to want access to territory in the Caribbean and the Pacific. Many of these islands had strategic military importance and could also serve as refueling points for trading ships. Investors saw range of agricultural and commercial opportunities. This was also happening as the Panama Canal was being built, a project that the US took over just a few years after taking control of these new territories, so people were seeing new potential for international shipping. There was also an argument for the US to take over these islands that was explicitly racist, that they were not capable of governing themselves, so the United States needed to take them over, an argument not to keep control of all of these islands was also racist. There were basically people who did it want islands full of people who were predominantly indigenous or Hispanic to suddenly become US citizens. In some cases, religious prejudice was also a factor, since some of these areas were predominantly Catholic. This can seem like an odd argument considering that the US had already incorporated a lot of territory in North America that had previously been colonized by Spain and had some demographic similarities to these islands, like under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican American War in eighteen forty eight, Mexico ceded more than half its territory to the US. People living there had been given a year to decide if they wanted to become US citizens, and by the time the Spanish American War ended, multiple states had been formed from that territory. But as an example, when California became a state in eighteen fifty, formed from territory that had been part of Mexico, it had a population of about ninety two thousand people. Meanwhile, at the end of the Spanish American War, the population of Puerto Rico was more than ten times that, and there were roughly seven million people living in the Philippines. The entire United States population at this point was about seventy six million people, So there were a lot of people who just completely freaked out about the idea that if the Philippines became a state, Filipinos would make up almost ten percent of the population of the United States. Also, with the exception of Puerto Rico, these newly acquired islands were geographically very far from continental North America, and that added to the perception that they were more foreign than something like the southwestern part of the continent was Also, to be clear, we're not suggesting that racism and prejudice were directed only at the people in these newly acquired island territories, or that everyone living in the continental US had the same constitutional rights at this point as exact samples. After the US Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment had granted citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the United States and subject to US jurisdiction, and the fifteenth Amendment had given black men the right to vote, but in practice, many black men could not freely exercise their right to vote, and women did not have a constitutional right to vote at all. Native Americans were not considered US citizens, and immigrants from many Asian countries were banned from becoming citizens. So the idea that the US might apply constitutional rights and protections only to some people also was not.

At all new.

At all new.

What was new was the idea that the US could acquire territory without that territory ultimately becoming a state. That is where we get to these Supreme Court cases. On May twenty seventh, nineteen oh one, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in six cases that had all been argued over the course of nineteen hundred and nineteen. Most of these were related to Puerto Rico. There was also one case relating to Hawaii and one related to the Philippines. Some constitutional law scholars frame these six decisions as the core insular cases. There are others who include two other cases that were decided in December of that same year. There are others who include a lot more cases that were decided over the next two decades, for up to a total of thirty five cases. So like the argument over which cases are the insular, cases can really vary depending on whose opinions.

What was new was the idea that the US could acquire territory without that territory ultimately becoming a state. That is where we get to these Supreme Court cases. On May twenty seventh, nineteen oh one, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in six cases that had all been argued over the course of nineteen hundred and nineteen. Most of these were related to Puerto Rico. There was also one case relating to Hawaii and one related to the Philippines. Some constitutional law scholars frame these six decisions as the core insular cases. There are others who include two other cases that were decided in December of that same year. There are others who include a lot more cases that were decided over the next two decades, for up to a total of thirty five cases. So like the argument over which cases are the insular, cases can really vary depending on whose opinions.

You're reading.

You're reading.

The idea that at least some of these cases would be grouped together as the Insular Cases was there right from the beginning. Some of the court's opinions collectively refer to the Insular Tariff Cases. In February of nineteen oh one, after the cases had been argued but before they were decided, the House of Representatives passed a resolution calling for the briefs and arguments from five of the cases to be printed together as a book called the Insular Cases. That book is one thousand and seventy five pages long, well light reading. Yeah, clearly we're not going to be talking about all of these cases in detail to quickly tick through these nineteen oh one cases. That's not just the first six, it's the other two as well. One outlier was Who's versus New York and Puerto Rico Steamship Company. This looked at the question of whether Puerto Rican ports were domestic or foreign ports in the context of US shipping law and New York laws around the pilotage of nautical vessels. Most of the other cases addressed the core question of whether Puerto Rico, Hawaii, or the Philippines should be considered a foreign country in terms of tariff law. These cases were Delema versus Bidwell, Gutsa versus United States, Armstrong versus United States, two different cases called Duly versus United States, and fourteen Diamond Rings versus United States. These cases all involved similar scenarios. A person or business had been required to pay a duty or had something seized by customs, but they argued that no duties or fees should have been required or customs should not have seized the goods since the goods had not come from a foreign country. The Court issued decisions in these cases establishing that none of these places were foreign countries in the context of tariff law unless the duty had been imposed before the United States annexed them. The last of these nineteen oh one cases, not in terms of time decided just in terms of us talking about them, was Downs versus Bidwell, and that looked at whether parts of the Forker Act were constitutional. The Foriker Act, also called the Puerto Rico Organic Act, had been passed in April of nineteen hundred. Among its many provisions, the Forker Act established a fifteen percent tariff on goods that were imported into Puerto Rico from the United States and vice versa. But Article one, Section eight, Clause one of the US Constitution, known as the Uniformity Clause, requires that quote all duties, imports, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. So if throughout the United States included Puerto Rico, it was unconstitutional for it to have this separate tariff. The Supreme Court's plurality decision was that no, the Foriker Act was not unconstitutional because while Puerto Rico belonged to the United States, it was not part of the United States. Of all these cases, Delema versus Bidwell and Downs versus Bidwell have gotten the most attention in terms of study and analysis, and Downs versus Bidwell in particular has become notorious for its racist language. To get into more on that, after a sponsor break, as we noted before the break, in nineteen oh one, the US Supreme Court issued a decision in Downs versus Bidwell that described Puerto Rico as belonging to the United States but not part of it. Downs versus Bidwell also established a distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territory. As we talked about in the first part of this show like this was a new idea. This was not how the United States had been doing it before. In the words of a concurring opinion by Justice Horace Gray, quote, so long as Congress has not incorporated the territory into the United States, neither military occupation nor session by treaty makes the conquered territory domestic territory in the sense of the revenue laws. But those laws can so learning foreign countries remain applicable to the conquered territory until changed by Congress. If Congress is not ready to construct a complete government for the conquered territory, it may establish a temporary government which is not subject to all the restrictions of the Constitution.

The idea that at least some of these cases would be grouped together as the Insular Cases was there right from the beginning. Some of the court's opinions collectively refer to the Insular Tariff Cases. In February of nineteen oh one, after the cases had been argued but before they were decided, the House of Representatives passed a resolution calling for the briefs and arguments from five of the cases to be printed together as a book called the Insular Cases. That book is one thousand and seventy five pages long, well light reading. Yeah, clearly we're not going to be talking about all of these cases in detail to quickly tick through these nineteen oh one cases. That's not just the first six, it's the other two as well. One outlier was Who's versus New York and Puerto Rico Steamship Company. This looked at the question of whether Puerto Rican ports were domestic or foreign ports in the context of US shipping law and New York laws around the pilotage of nautical vessels. Most of the other cases addressed the core question of whether Puerto Rico, Hawaii, or the Philippines should be considered a foreign country in terms of tariff law. These cases were Delema versus Bidwell, Gutsa versus United States, Armstrong versus United States, two different cases called Duly versus United States, and fourteen Diamond Rings versus United States. These cases all involved similar scenarios. A person or business had been required to pay a duty or had something seized by customs, but they argued that no duties or fees should have been required or customs should not have seized the goods since the goods had not come from a foreign country. The Court issued decisions in these cases establishing that none of these places were foreign countries in the context of tariff law unless the duty had been imposed before the United States annexed them. The last of these nineteen oh one cases, not in terms of time decided just in terms of us talking about them, was Downs versus Bidwell, and that looked at whether parts of the Forker Act were constitutional. The Foriker Act, also called the Puerto Rico Organic Act, had been passed in April of nineteen hundred. Among its many provisions, the Forker Act established a fifteen percent tariff on goods that were imported into Puerto Rico from the United States and vice versa. But Article one, Section eight, Clause one of the US Constitution, known as the Uniformity Clause, requires that quote all duties, imports, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. So if throughout the United States included Puerto Rico, it was unconstitutional for it to have this separate tariff. The Supreme Court's plurality decision was that no, the Foriker Act was not unconstitutional because while Puerto Rico belonged to the United States, it was not part of the United States. Of all these cases, Delema versus Bidwell and Downs versus Bidwell have gotten the most attention in terms of study and analysis, and Downs versus Bidwell in particular has become notorious for its racist language. To get into more on that, after a sponsor break, as we noted before the break, in nineteen oh one, the US Supreme Court issued a decision in Downs versus Bidwell that described Puerto Rico as belonging to the United States but not part of it. Downs versus Bidwell also established a distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territory. As we talked about in the first part of this show like this was a new idea. This was not how the United States had been doing it before. In the words of a concurring opinion by Justice Horace Gray, quote, so long as Congress has not incorporated the territory into the United States, neither military occupation nor session by treaty makes the conquered territory domestic territory in the sense of the revenue laws. But those laws can so learning foreign countries remain applicable to the conquered territory until changed by Congress. If Congress is not ready to construct a complete government for the conquered territory, it may establish a temporary government which is not subject to all the restrictions of the Constitution.

That doesn't sound.

That doesn't sound.

Like a fat loophole at all. In other words, Puerto Rico and by extension, the other island territories were not foreign countries in terms of tariff law, but also were not part of the United States in any way that would bring them under the Constitution's uniformity clause.

Like a fat loophole at all. In other words, Puerto Rico and by extension, the other island territories were not foreign countries in terms of tariff law, but also were not part of the United States in any way that would bring them under the Constitution's uniformity clause.

This decision sort of.

This decision sort of.

Read into various parts of the Constitution and previous court decisions, arguing that you really couldn't infer from the Constitution that territories were part of the United States, like the thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolished slavery quote within the United States, were in any place subject to their jurisdiction. So, according to this argument, that had to mean there were places that were subject to US jurisdiction but were not part of the United States. Or in the fourteenth Amendment quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. So in the Court's view, that suggested that in the United States and subject to US jurisdiction could be two totally different things. To quote from the plurality opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown quote, We are also of the opinion that the power to acquire territory by treaty implies not only the power to govern such territory, but to prescribe upon what terms the United States will receive its inhabitants and what their status shall be in what Chief Justice Marshall termed the American Empire. There seems to be no middle ground between this position and the doctrine that if their inhabitants do not become immediately upon annexation citizens of the United States. Their children thereafter born, whether savages or civilized, are such and entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens. If such be their status, the consequences will be extremely serious. Indeed, it is doubtful if Congress would ever assent to the annexation of territory upon the condition that its inhabitants, however foreign they may be, to our habits, traditions, and modes of life, shall become at once citizens of the United States. Legal racism. Yeah, it's very It's like, it's straightforwardly racist. Uh.

Read into various parts of the Constitution and previous court decisions, arguing that you really couldn't infer from the Constitution that territories were part of the United States, like the thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolished slavery quote within the United States, were in any place subject to their jurisdiction. So, according to this argument, that had to mean there were places that were subject to US jurisdiction but were not part of the United States. Or in the fourteenth Amendment quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. So in the Court's view, that suggested that in the United States and subject to US jurisdiction could be two totally different things. To quote from the plurality opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown quote, We are also of the opinion that the power to acquire territory by treaty implies not only the power to govern such territory, but to prescribe upon what terms the United States will receive its inhabitants and what their status shall be in what Chief Justice Marshall termed the American Empire. There seems to be no middle ground between this position and the doctrine that if their inhabitants do not become immediately upon annexation citizens of the United States. Their children thereafter born, whether savages or civilized, are such and entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens. If such be their status, the consequences will be extremely serious. Indeed, it is doubtful if Congress would ever assent to the annexation of territory upon the condition that its inhabitants, however foreign they may be, to our habits, traditions, and modes of life, shall become at once citizens of the United States. Legal racism. Yeah, it's very It's like, it's straightforwardly racist. Uh.

The Plurality opinion concluded. Quote.

The Plurality opinion concluded. Quote.

If those possessions are inhabited by alien races differing from us in religion, customs, laws, men, methods of taxation, and modes of thought, the administration of government and justice according to Anglo Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible, And the question at once arises whether large concessions ought not to be made for a time that ultimately our own theories may be carried out, and the blessings of a free government under the Constitution extended to them. We decline to hold that there is anything in the Constitution to forbid such action. It went on to say, quote, we are therefore of opinion that the island of Puerto Rico is a territory, a pertinent, and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution. That the Foriker Act is constitutional so far as it imposes duties upon imports from such island, and that the plaintiff cannot recover back the duties exacted in this case. So this was one of many five four decisions among the insular cases. Just in case folks are not from the US, they don't necessarily know how the Supreme Court is set up. There are nine justices, and so in a lot of these cases, the decision was five to four. A dissent by Chief Justice Fuller included the statement quote great stress is thrown upon the word incorporation, as if possessed of some occult meaning. Justice John M. Harlan also penned a dissent of his own, which set in part quote these are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character. I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this Court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written Constitution into an era of life legislative absolutism. Together, these nineteen oh one cases established the idea that Puerto Rico, Hawaii, the Philippines, Samoa, and Guam were part of the United States in some ways but not others, and could stay that way indefinitely. Cases that followed later in the early twentieth century also outlined limits on the constitutional rights of people living in these territories. As we said earlier, some scholars consider these later cases to be part of the insular cases, and some do not. As a few examples, Door versus United States decided in nineteen oh four looked at the question of whether residents of the Philippines had the right to a trial by jury. The right to a jury trial is outlined in the sixth Amendment to the Constitution, but the Court ruled that it would only apply in the Philippines if Congress enacted legislation to establish that right. Hawaii versus Mankiche was similar, finding that the right to a jury trial had not existed in Hawaii in the window between when the US annexed it and when Congress passed an Act to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii in nineteen hundred. This act bestowed US citizenship on the people who had been citizens of the Republic of Hawaii as of August twelfth, eighteen ninety eight. So once people in Hawaii were considered to be US citizens, they were entitled to a trial by jury. But when Hawaii was a US territory whose residents were not citizens, they were not entitled to a jury trial. Gonzales versus Williams was decided in nineteen oh four. Although Puerto Ricans were not considered US citizens at that time, they were supposed to be able to travel freely to the United States. Isabella Gonzalez had tried to join her fiance in New York, but was turned away at port. She was pregnant, and authorities described her as an alien who was likely to become a public charge. The court found that she was not an alien and should not have been denied entry into New York, but also did not find that she was a citizen. This case is sometimes cited as a factor in Puerto Rican's ultimately being given citizenship as part of the Jones Schafroth Act in nineteen seventeen. When I got to this part, I was like, I kind of wish I had done a whole episode on this one case, which might happen at some point in the future. We still could.

If those possessions are inhabited by alien races differing from us in religion, customs, laws, men, methods of taxation, and modes of thought, the administration of government and justice according to Anglo Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible, And the question at once arises whether large concessions ought not to be made for a time that ultimately our own theories may be carried out, and the blessings of a free government under the Constitution extended to them. We decline to hold that there is anything in the Constitution to forbid such action. It went on to say, quote, we are therefore of opinion that the island of Puerto Rico is a territory, a pertinent, and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution. That the Foriker Act is constitutional so far as it imposes duties upon imports from such island, and that the plaintiff cannot recover back the duties exacted in this case. So this was one of many five four decisions among the insular cases. Just in case folks are not from the US, they don't necessarily know how the Supreme Court is set up. There are nine justices, and so in a lot of these cases, the decision was five to four. A dissent by Chief Justice Fuller included the statement quote great stress is thrown upon the word incorporation, as if possessed of some occult meaning. Justice John M. Harlan also penned a dissent of his own, which set in part quote these are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character. I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this Court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written Constitution into an era of life legislative absolutism. Together, these nineteen oh one cases established the idea that Puerto Rico, Hawaii, the Philippines, Samoa, and Guam were part of the United States in some ways but not others, and could stay that way indefinitely. Cases that followed later in the early twentieth century also outlined limits on the constitutional rights of people living in these territories. As we said earlier, some scholars consider these later cases to be part of the insular cases, and some do not. As a few examples, Door versus United States decided in nineteen oh four looked at the question of whether residents of the Philippines had the right to a trial by jury. The right to a jury trial is outlined in the sixth Amendment to the Constitution, but the Court ruled that it would only apply in the Philippines if Congress enacted legislation to establish that right. Hawaii versus Mankiche was similar, finding that the right to a jury trial had not existed in Hawaii in the window between when the US annexed it and when Congress passed an Act to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii in nineteen hundred. This act bestowed US citizenship on the people who had been citizens of the Republic of Hawaii as of August twelfth, eighteen ninety eight. So once people in Hawaii were considered to be US citizens, they were entitled to a trial by jury. But when Hawaii was a US territory whose residents were not citizens, they were not entitled to a jury trial. Gonzales versus Williams was decided in nineteen oh four. Although Puerto Ricans were not considered US citizens at that time, they were supposed to be able to travel freely to the United States. Isabella Gonzalez had tried to join her fiance in New York, but was turned away at port. She was pregnant, and authorities described her as an alien who was likely to become a public charge. The court found that she was not an alien and should not have been denied entry into New York, but also did not find that she was a citizen. This case is sometimes cited as a factor in Puerto Rican's ultimately being given citizenship as part of the Jones Schafroth Act in nineteen seventeen. When I got to this part, I was like, I kind of wish I had done a whole episode on this one case, which might happen at some point in the future. We still could.

One of the last.

One of the last.

Cases that is sometimes grouped together with the insular cases was Balzac versus Puerto Rico, decided in nineteen twenty two. This was a case in which Jesus M. Balzac, editor of a Puerto Rican daily newspaper, had been charged with libel. So this case was connected to the rights of free speech, freedom of the press, and trial by jury, which are all considered basic constitutional rights in the United States. The court found that Puerto Rico had not been incorporated into the United States, and that the sixth the Amendment right to a jury trial did not apply, and that Balzac's published work was not protected by the rights to free speech or a free press. There are a lot of contradictions among these cases and sometimes within the cases themselves. As we said earlier, many were decided five to four, and often those five justices agreed on the outcome but not on the reasoning behind it. But together they established what's known as the incorporation Doctrine. They outlined differences between incorporated and unincorporated territories and set the stage for the United States to be able to claim unincorporated territories in perpetuity without allowing them to enter the Union as states or de annexing them. While the US Constitution established the nation as a representative democracy, the Insular cases set aside several territories territories that were inhabited primarily by Hispanic and Indigenous people as not entitled to full particition, patient or representation in that democracy. While as we said earlier, these cases still stand, there have of course been some shifts in details over the last century. The Philippines became independent from the United States in nineteen forty six after being occupied by Japan during World War Two. Japan had actually declared the Philippines independent in nineteen forty three, sort of trying to get the support of Filipinos during this occupation. As we said earlier, the people of Puerto Rico were granted statutory citizenship in nineteen seventeen, and in nineteen fifty Public Law six hundred authorized the people of Puerto Rico to draft their own constitution, so Puerto Rico today is considered to be self governing. Hawaii became a state in nineteen fifty nine, a process that took more than fifty years, due in part to racist attitudes against the archipelago's native Hawaiian and Asian residents. While voters in Hawaii overwhelmingly ratified at statehood, many Native Hawaiians have pushed instead for Hawaiian independence and sovereignty. Residents of Guam gained US citizenship under the Guam Organic Act of nineteen fifty after having been essentially abandoned by the United States and left to a horrific occupation by Japan during World War Two. Today, American Samoans are considered US nationals, but not US citizens. You can say this of all of these places, but the United States has definitely been most focused on them when it has been like the most within US interests to do so so, Like there's the most focused on the well being of Guam when there's a like strategic military reason to do so for some reason, and like This abandonment of Guam during World War Two is kind of the US did basically just like cut his losses. We mentioned the Northern Mariana Islands and the US Virgin.

Cases that is sometimes grouped together with the insular cases was Balzac versus Puerto Rico, decided in nineteen twenty two. This was a case in which Jesus M. Balzac, editor of a Puerto Rican daily newspaper, had been charged with libel. So this case was connected to the rights of free speech, freedom of the press, and trial by jury, which are all considered basic constitutional rights in the United States. The court found that Puerto Rico had not been incorporated into the United States, and that the sixth the Amendment right to a jury trial did not apply, and that Balzac's published work was not protected by the rights to free speech or a free press. There are a lot of contradictions among these cases and sometimes within the cases themselves. As we said earlier, many were decided five to four, and often those five justices agreed on the outcome but not on the reasoning behind it. But together they established what's known as the incorporation Doctrine. They outlined differences between incorporated and unincorporated territories and set the stage for the United States to be able to claim unincorporated territories in perpetuity without allowing them to enter the Union as states or de annexing them. While the US Constitution established the nation as a representative democracy, the Insular cases set aside several territories territories that were inhabited primarily by Hispanic and Indigenous people as not entitled to full particition, patient or representation in that democracy. While as we said earlier, these cases still stand, there have of course been some shifts in details over the last century. The Philippines became independent from the United States in nineteen forty six after being occupied by Japan during World War Two. Japan had actually declared the Philippines independent in nineteen forty three, sort of trying to get the support of Filipinos during this occupation. As we said earlier, the people of Puerto Rico were granted statutory citizenship in nineteen seventeen, and in nineteen fifty Public Law six hundred authorized the people of Puerto Rico to draft their own constitution, so Puerto Rico today is considered to be self governing. Hawaii became a state in nineteen fifty nine, a process that took more than fifty years, due in part to racist attitudes against the archipelago's native Hawaiian and Asian residents. While voters in Hawaii overwhelmingly ratified at statehood, many Native Hawaiians have pushed instead for Hawaiian independence and sovereignty. Residents of Guam gained US citizenship under the Guam Organic Act of nineteen fifty after having been essentially abandoned by the United States and left to a horrific occupation by Japan during World War Two. Today, American Samoans are considered US nationals, but not US citizens. You can say this of all of these places, but the United States has definitely been most focused on them when it has been like the most within US interests to do so so, Like there's the most focused on the well being of Guam when there's a like strategic military reason to do so for some reason, and like This abandonment of Guam during World War Two is kind of the US did basically just like cut his losses. We mentioned the Northern Mariana Islands and the US Virgin.

Islands the top of the show. They have not come up.

Islands the top of the show. They have not come up.

Again because they were not US territories when the first Insular cases were decided. The US purchased the US Virgin Islands from Denmark in nineteen seventeen. The Northern Mariana Islands became a US territory in nineteen seventy five, even though neither was a US territory when the original Insular cases were being argued and decided. They're both considered unincorporated territories. Following this same model that the Insular cases established, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam are all on the United Nations list of non self governing territories. Broadly speaking, people living in these territories are considered to be entitled to fundamental constitutional rights, but not necessarily to others, and opinions can also differ on which rights should be considered fundamental. The unincorporated territories are not represented by the Electoral College in presidential elections. They are represented by one delegate each in the House of Representation, it is who can serve on committees and can introduce legislation, but cannot vote. There are actually six total non voting members of the House. The sixth one represents Washington d C. So, as is the case with the unincorporated territories, residents of Washington d C. Don't have the same representation in Congress as people who live in what the states do. A key difference here, though, is that the Constitution itself outlines the creation of a district to serve as the seat of the government.

Again because they were not US territories when the first Insular cases were decided. The US purchased the US Virgin Islands from Denmark in nineteen seventeen. The Northern Mariana Islands became a US territory in nineteen seventy five, even though neither was a US territory when the original Insular cases were being argued and decided. They're both considered unincorporated territories. Following this same model that the Insular cases established, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam are all on the United Nations list of non self governing territories. Broadly speaking, people living in these territories are considered to be entitled to fundamental constitutional rights, but not necessarily to others, and opinions can also differ on which rights should be considered fundamental. The unincorporated territories are not represented by the Electoral College in presidential elections. They are represented by one delegate each in the House of Representation, it is who can serve on committees and can introduce legislation, but cannot vote. There are actually six total non voting members of the House. The sixth one represents Washington d C. So, as is the case with the unincorporated territories, residents of Washington d C. Don't have the same representation in Congress as people who live in what the states do. A key difference here, though, is that the Constitution itself outlines the creation of a district to serve as the seat of the government.

Washington d C.

Washington d C.

Did not come about because the Supreme Court kind of made up but justification to do so. At this point, there's near unanimous agreement among historians and constitutional law scholars that the insular cases are rooted in racism and colonialism, but there's less agreement about what the outcome would be if these cases were overturned, and whether that outcome would ultimately be positive for people who would be affected. And in more recent years, they're some attempts to use these decisions to try to protect the rights of people who are living in these territories. For example, in the US, it would be considered unconstitutional to pass laws tying property ownership to race. Theoretically, since the unincorporated territories don't have full constitutional protection, it would be possible to pass laws giving these islands indigenous people's preference in terms of land ownership based on their race, which could help protect their connections to their ancestral homelands and their traditional ways of life. Having worked on this show for a decade, Tracy notes that she's not really optimistic about this working out. I would agree with that, And she also read a lot of arguments that basically kind of summed this up to, no matter what good end you try to put them to, these decisions are still racist and should.

Did not come about because the Supreme Court kind of made up but justification to do so. At this point, there's near unanimous agreement among historians and constitutional law scholars that the insular cases are rooted in racism and colonialism, but there's less agreement about what the outcome would be if these cases were overturned, and whether that outcome would ultimately be positive for people who would be affected. And in more recent years, they're some attempts to use these decisions to try to protect the rights of people who are living in these territories. For example, in the US, it would be considered unconstitutional to pass laws tying property ownership to race. Theoretically, since the unincorporated territories don't have full constitutional protection, it would be possible to pass laws giving these islands indigenous people's preference in terms of land ownership based on their race, which could help protect their connections to their ancestral homelands and their traditional ways of life. Having worked on this show for a decade, Tracy notes that she's not really optimistic about this working out. I would agree with that, And she also read a lot of arguments that basically kind of summed this up to, no matter what good end you try to put them to, these decisions are still racist and should.

Still be overturned.

Still be overturned.

Yeah, And to be very clear, the only reason I said there is near unanimous agreement instead of just unanimous agreement is because I know if we say unanimous, we're gonna get an article somebody sends to us that's like, here's the one outlier who claims this was not about racism. There have also been a number of Supreme Court cases in more recent years that have continued to uphold elements of the Insular cases and to outline ways in which people living in these territories can be treated differently from people in the fifty States or Washington, d C. In accept the context of congressional representation, we're talking about Washington DC. So, for example, the US versus Valeo Madero was decided in twenty twenty two. Valeo Madero was a Puerto Rican living in New York who had been receiving supplemental Security income payments that's what we colloquially called social security or disability payments. He moved to Puerto Rico, making him no longer eligible to receive these payments, and the government did not realize he had moved and kept sending the payments. When they realized what had happened, the government sued to try to recoup that money. The argument in this case was that excluding Puerto Ricans from the program violated the Constitution's due process clause in the Fifth Amendment. In an eight to one decision, the Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the Constitution did not require supplemental Security income payments for people in Puerto Rico. Justice Neil Gorsich wrote a scathing concurrence, agreeing with the majority opinion but also arguing stridently against the Insular cases. He wrote, quote, flaws in the Insular cases are as fundamental as they are shameful. Nothing in the Constitution speaks of incorporated and unincorporated territories. Nothing in it extends to the latter only certain supposedly fundamental constitutional guarantees. Nothing in it authorizes judges to engage in the sordid business of segregating territories and the people who live in them on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion. The Insular case uses can claim support in academic work of the period, ugly racial stereotypes and the theories of social Darwinists, but they have no home in our Constitution or its original understanding. The case that the Supreme Court declined to hear last year was Fitisimanu versus United States that was brought by three American Samoans living in Utah. They argued that the Fourteenth Amendment's birthright citizenship clause should apply to the people of American Samoa. While American Samoans who moved to the United States can apply for citizenship, they're not guaranteed citizenship. They are also denied various rights like voting and running for office until they become citizens if those applications are successful. As we said at the top of the show, people in American Samoa have varying opinions on these issues. In this case, the government of American Samoa and Congresswoman al Mua Amada, who represents American samo submitted a brief opposing this idea. It read, in part quote, the citizenship clause does not require imposing birthright citizenship on the people of American Samoa over the objection of their elected representatives and government, and in violation of their basic right to self determination. This brief stress the importance of FAA Samoa, or the Samoan culture and way of life, arguing that FAA Samoa is fundamentally important to the Samoan people and that imposing birthright citizenship on American Samoa would undermine it. The Samoan Federation of America, which supports and advocates for Samoan Americans living in the United States, was one of the organizations that submitted a brief supporting the petitioners. Yeah, so, as we said earlier, people are not a monolith. There are varying opinions on this. There were more briefs submitted in support of applying birthright citizenship to American Samoa, but also a lot of people currently living in American Samoa who really that's not what we want though, a lot of these things are complicated and we have not gotten into it here. But like these distinctions and which rights apply and which don't, like a lot of them just trickle down to all kinds of things about people's everyday lives.

Yeah, And to be very clear, the only reason I said there is near unanimous agreement instead of just unanimous agreement is because I know if we say unanimous, we're gonna get an article somebody sends to us that's like, here's the one outlier who claims this was not about racism. There have also been a number of Supreme Court cases in more recent years that have continued to uphold elements of the Insular cases and to outline ways in which people living in these territories can be treated differently from people in the fifty States or Washington, d C. In accept the context of congressional representation, we're talking about Washington DC. So, for example, the US versus Valeo Madero was decided in twenty twenty two. Valeo Madero was a Puerto Rican living in New York who had been receiving supplemental Security income payments that's what we colloquially called social security or disability payments. He moved to Puerto Rico, making him no longer eligible to receive these payments, and the government did not realize he had moved and kept sending the payments. When they realized what had happened, the government sued to try to recoup that money. The argument in this case was that excluding Puerto Ricans from the program violated the Constitution's due process clause in the Fifth Amendment. In an eight to one decision, the Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the Constitution did not require supplemental Security income payments for people in Puerto Rico. Justice Neil Gorsich wrote a scathing concurrence, agreeing with the majority opinion but also arguing stridently against the Insular cases. He wrote, quote, flaws in the Insular cases are as fundamental as they are shameful. Nothing in the Constitution speaks of incorporated and unincorporated territories. Nothing in it extends to the latter only certain supposedly fundamental constitutional guarantees. Nothing in it authorizes judges to engage in the sordid business of segregating territories and the people who live in them on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion. The Insular case uses can claim support in academic work of the period, ugly racial stereotypes and the theories of social Darwinists, but they have no home in our Constitution or its original understanding. The case that the Supreme Court declined to hear last year was Fitisimanu versus United States that was brought by three American Samoans living in Utah. They argued that the Fourteenth Amendment's birthright citizenship clause should apply to the people of American Samoa. While American Samoans who moved to the United States can apply for citizenship, they're not guaranteed citizenship. They are also denied various rights like voting and running for office until they become citizens if those applications are successful. As we said at the top of the show, people in American Samoa have varying opinions on these issues. In this case, the government of American Samoa and Congresswoman al Mua Amada, who represents American samo submitted a brief opposing this idea. It read, in part quote, the citizenship clause does not require imposing birthright citizenship on the people of American Samoa over the objection of their elected representatives and government, and in violation of their basic right to self determination. This brief stress the importance of FAA Samoa, or the Samoan culture and way of life, arguing that FAA Samoa is fundamentally important to the Samoan people and that imposing birthright citizenship on American Samoa would undermine it. The Samoan Federation of America, which supports and advocates for Samoan Americans living in the United States, was one of the organizations that submitted a brief supporting the petitioners. Yeah, so, as we said earlier, people are not a monolith. There are varying opinions on this. There were more briefs submitted in support of applying birthright citizenship to American Samoa, but also a lot of people currently living in American Samoa who really that's not what we want though, a lot of these things are complicated and we have not gotten into it here. But like these distinctions and which rights apply and which don't, like a lot of them just trickle down to all kinds of things about people's everyday lives.

A lot of.

A lot of.

These places have uh, disproportionately higher participation in military service, so there are a lot of military veterans, but uh, you know, military veterans and returning to these places aren't able to do things like vote president afterward. And in some cases the veterans services in their local areas are a business.

These places have uh, disproportionately higher participation in military service, so there are a lot of military veterans, but uh, you know, military veterans and returning to these places aren't able to do things like vote president afterward. And in some cases the veterans services in their local areas are a business.

Good. Yeah, I was reading.

Good. Yeah, I was reading.

I was reading one thing about people from Guam needing particular veteran services and having to go to Hawaii to get them, which is like four thousand miles away. So anyway, do you have listened mail? I do I have listener mail? It is from Miranda. Miranda wrote after our Two Sergeants episode and said, Holly and Tracy, longtime listener, first time writer. I was listening to your episode on Judith and Emily's sargent and a name caught my attention, Minister Gordon Gibson. Imagine my shock to hear the name of the retired Unitarian minister who used to be my neighbor. I'm just going to put a note here to say that Gordon Gibson is still living, is retired. We don't normally talk a lot about living people in the show, but then in this case, this case, we're talking about a thing related to like their historical connection. So this email went on to say, it was interesting to learn about an early Unitarian in the form of Judith, who participated in slavery as an institution. When I usually picture Unitarians as being abolitionists, it's a fascinating juxtaposition that mister Gibson discovered those papers.

I was reading one thing about people from Guam needing particular veteran services and having to go to Hawaii to get them, which is like four thousand miles away. So anyway, do you have listened mail? I do I have listener mail? It is from Miranda. Miranda wrote after our Two Sergeants episode and said, Holly and Tracy, longtime listener, first time writer. I was listening to your episode on Judith and Emily's sargent and a name caught my attention, Minister Gordon Gibson. Imagine my shock to hear the name of the retired Unitarian minister who used to be my neighbor. I'm just going to put a note here to say that Gordon Gibson is still living, is retired. We don't normally talk a lot about living people in the show, but then in this case, this case, we're talking about a thing related to like their historical connection. So this email went on to say, it was interesting to learn about an early Unitarian in the form of Judith, who participated in slavery as an institution. When I usually picture Unitarians as being abolitionists, it's a fascinating juxtaposition that mister Gibson discovered those papers.

As he was.

As he was.

Very active in the civil rights movement. He was arrested in Alabama and founded a project to keep the history of the civil rights movement alive. He was the only Unitarian Universalist minister in Mississippi from nineteen sixty nine to nineteen eighty four. I'm always fascinated by the intersection of historical people and moments with each other over and through time and I was so tickled to hear his name. He's retired now but still very active in the community. I alas have moved away, but I'm very proud to have known him. Attaching my pet tax Scottie is my bad tempered nine year old calico. Her sweet face is a lie and the flufey baby boy is Willow, just over a year and very naughty. These cats are definitely adorable. We have one in a little cat sort of one of those sort of like plushy little cat houses, which we have a similar one at our house that is gray that one of our kitty cats likes to lie in in a very similar position.

Very active in the civil rights movement. He was arrested in Alabama and founded a project to keep the history of the civil rights movement alive. He was the only Unitarian Universalist minister in Mississippi from nineteen sixty nine to nineteen eighty four. I'm always fascinated by the intersection of historical people and moments with each other over and through time and I was so tickled to hear his name. He's retired now but still very active in the community. I alas have moved away, but I'm very proud to have known him. Attaching my pet tax Scottie is my bad tempered nine year old calico. Her sweet face is a lie and the flufey baby boy is Willow, just over a year and very naughty. These cats are definitely adorable. We have one in a little cat sort of one of those sort of like plushy little cat houses, which we have a similar one at our house that is gray that one of our kitty cats likes to lie in in a very similar position.

So thank you so much for sending that.

So thank you so much for sending that.

This comment about Judas Sergeant Murray participating in slavery at a time when Miranda usually pictures Unitarians as being abolition reminded me a little bit of Benjamin Leigh, who we covered on this show a few years ago, who was a Quaker, not a Unitarian, but was expelled from congregations for his incredibly vocal denunciation of slavery at a time when like a number of Quakers were participating in slavery. So that just sort of reminded me of that a little bit. I don't know if we have run that episode as a Saturday Classic, but maybe if not, I might line that up. Having been reminded, Benjamin Lee is one of my favorite historical figures. So thank you so much, Miranda for this email in these cat pictures and this note about things that I did not know about Gordon Gibson. If you would like to write to us, store at History Podcasts at ieartradio dot com. And we're on social media as Missed in History, so you'll find our Facebook formerly Twitter, Pinterest, and Instagram, and you can subscribe to our show on the iHeartRadio app and wherever you like to get your p stuff. You Missed in History Class is a production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

This comment about Judas Sergeant Murray participating in slavery at a time when Miranda usually pictures Unitarians as being abolition reminded me a little bit of Benjamin Leigh, who we covered on this show a few years ago, who was a Quaker, not a Unitarian, but was expelled from congregations for his incredibly vocal denunciation of slavery at a time when like a number of Quakers were participating in slavery. So that just sort of reminded me of that a little bit. I don't know if we have run that episode as a Saturday Classic, but maybe if not, I might line that up. Having been reminded, Benjamin Lee is one of my favorite historical figures. So thank you so much, Miranda for this email in these cat pictures and this note about things that I did not know about Gordon Gibson. If you would like to write to us, store at History Podcasts at ieartradio dot com. And we're on social media as Missed in History, so you'll find our Facebook formerly Twitter, Pinterest, and Instagram, and you can subscribe to our show on the iHeartRadio app and wherever you like to get your p stuff. You Missed in History Class is a production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.