Tuaua v US, Extension Application for Cert Petition w Certificates (as-Filed)

7/23/2019 Tuaua v US, Extension Application for Cert Petition w Certificates (as-Filed)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tuaua-v-us-extension-application-for-cert-petition-w-certificates-as-filed 1/34

No. 15

-A-

IN

THE

~ 5 ~ x ~ x e x r t e

C ~ a ~ x x ~ ~ r ~

~ ~ r ~x~t~e~

~ 5 t ~ x t . e s

LENEUOTI

IAFIATUAUA,

VA ALEAMA

TOVIA

FOSI,

ANLTATANCT

F. .

MAMEA,

ONBEHALF

OF

HIMSELFAND

HISTHREE

MINORCHILDREN,

TAFFY

-LEI

T.MAENE,

EMY

IATALAAFALAVA,

AND

SAMOAN

FEDERATION

OF

MERICA,

NC.,

P e t i t i o n e r s ,

v .

UNITED

STATES

OF

AMERICA,ET L.,

Respondents.

APPLICATION

FOR AN

XTENSION

OF

IME

WITHIN

WHICH

TO

ILEA

ETITION

FOR

A

RIT

OF ERTIORARI

TOTHE ISTRICT

OF OLUMBIA

CIRCUIT

NEIL

C.

WEAR,E

THEODOREB.

OLSON

WE

HEPEOPLE PROJECT

Counsel

of

ecord

1666

Connecticut Ave., N.W.,

uite 500 MATTHEW

D

CGILL

Washington,

D.C.

20009

~TONATHAN

C.

BOND

(202)

304

-1202

Jacos T.

PENCER

[email protected]

GIBSON,

DUNN i

CRUTCHER

LLP

1050

Connecticut

Avenue,

N.W.

C~IARLES

V.

LA ILIMA

Washington, .C.

20036

ALa ILi~

r r D

AssociaTES P.C.

(202)

55-8500

P.O.

Box

1118

t o l s o n

@gibsondunn.com

N u u u l i ,

AS 96799

(684)

99

-6732

Counsel

o r

Applicants

P e t i t i o n e r s



TO

THE

HONORABLE

JOHN .

ROBERTS,

HIEF

JUSTICEOF

THE

NITED

STATES

AND

CIRCUIT JUSTICEFOR

THE

DISTRICTOF

COLUMBIA

IRCUIT:

Pursuant t o

t h i s

C o u r t ' s Rule 1 3 . 5 ,


r e s p e c t f u l l y

request

a

30

-day

extension

of time, o

and

including

Mon da y ,

ebruary

1,

2016,

within

w h i c h

t o

f i l e

a

p e t i t i o n f o r

a

writ

o f

e r t i o r a r i

t o

the

United States

Court

of

ppeals

o r the

i s t r i c t

of

Columbia

C i r c u i t . l

The

court

of

appeals

entered t s judgment

o n

June 5,

015,

Tuaua

v . United

S t a t e s ,

788

F.3d

300

D.C.

i r .

2015) attached as Exhibit

A), and

a

timely

p e t i t i o n f o r

rehearing en banc was

enied o n

October 2,

2015,

Order,

No.

1 3

-5272

D.C.

i r . Oct.

2,

015)

En

an c

Order ) . Unless extended,

he time

within

w h i c h

o

f i l e a

p e t i t i o n

f o r

a

writ

o f

c e r t i o r a r i w i l l

e x p i r e

o n

December 31, 2015.

Th e

j u r i s d i c t i o n

of

h i s

Court

would be

invoked

under

2 8

U.S.C.

§

2 5 4 ( 1 ) .

1 .

This

case

presents the

important

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

question

whether

the

C i t i z e n s h i p

Clause

o f

he

Fourteenth Amendment ermits

Congress

o

deny

i r t h r i g h t

c i t i z e n s h i p

t o U.S.

a t i o n a l s

born

in

American

S a m o a ,

U.S.

e r r i t o r y

s i n c e

1900.

a . The

C i t i z e n s h i p Clause guarantees

U.S.

i t i z e n s h i p

t o

[ a ] 1 1

persons

born

or

naturalized

in

the

United S t a t e s ,

and

s u b j e c t t o

the

u r i s d i c t i o n t h e r e o f .

U.S.

Const.

amend.

XIV

§ . I t

was

adopted t o

o v e r t u r [ n ] Dred S c o t t

v .

Sandford, 60

.S .

1 9

How.) 9 3

1856), e e

Slaughter

-House

Cases,83 .S. 1 6

Wall.)36,73 1873),

and

` t o put h [ e ]

question

of

i t i z e n s h i p

and

the

i g h t s

o f

i t i z e n s

beyond

the e g i s l a t i v e

power. ' Afroyim v . Rusk,

387 U.S.

253, 63

1967)

quoting Cong. Globe,

39th

Cong.,

1st

Sess.

2896

1866)

Sen.

Howard)).

The Clause

c o d i f i e d

the

common

-law d o c t r i n e

~

Pursuant

to

Rule

29.6

o f

the

Rules

o f

h i s Court,

undersigned

counsel s t a t e s

that

the

Samoan

ederation

of

merica,

n c . , s a

0 1 ( c ) ( 3 )

no n

-

p r o f i t

o r g a n i z a t i o n

that

h as

no parent

o r p o r a t i o n , and no

u b l i c l y

held

c o m p a n y o w n s 10%

r

more

of

t s

s t o c k .



of

us

o l i—the r i g h t

of

the s o i l —thus

a f f i r m [ i n g )

the

a n c i e n t

and

fundamental

r u l e

of

i t i z e n s h i p

by

b i r t h

within

the

t e r r i t o r y , in

the

a l l e g i a n c e

and

under

the

p r o t e c t i o n

of the

c o u n t r y .

United S t a t e s v .

Wong

Kim

Ark, 169

U.S. 649, 693 1 8 9 8 ) . And t

p u [ t ] at r e s t the

p r o p o s i t i o n

that [ t ] h o s e

who

had

been

born

and

r e s i d e d

always

in

the

D i s t r i c t

of Columbia

or

n t h e

T e r r i t o r i e s , though w i t h i n t h e United S t a t e s , were

not i t i z e n s .

Slaughter

-House

Cases,

83

U.S. 16

W a l l . )

at

72

-73 emphases

a d d e d ) .

American

Samoa

has

been a

U.S.

t e r r i t o r y

s i n c e 1900,

when

i t s

p e o p l e

v o l u n t a r i l y

ceded s o v e r e i g n t y

t o

the

United

S t a t e s .

Ex. A,

at

3 .

Persons

born in

American

Sam oa a r e

U.S.

n a t i o n a l s , 8 U.S.C.

§

4 0 8 ( 1 ) , .

w h o

undisputedly

ow[e]

permanent

a l l e g i a n c e

t o

the United

S t a t e s . I d . §

1 0 1 ( a ) ( 2 2 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s ,

Congress e x c l u d e s persons

born in

American

Samoa

—but not

any

o t h e r

U.S.

t e r r i t o r y

—from

c i t i z e n s h i p .

I t

has

c l a s s i f i e d

American

Sam oa (and

only

American

Samoa)an

o u t l y i n g

p o s s e s s i o [ n ] ,

d . §

1 0 1 ( a ) ( 2 9 ) ,

and

deemed

persons born

t h e r e t o

be

n a t i o n a l s ,

but

not

c i t i z e n s ,

of the

United

States

at

b i r t h , i d .

§

1408(1)

emphasis

a d d e d ) . 2


hold U.S.

a s s p o r t s

imprinted

with

a

d i s c l a i m e r that

the

bearer

i s a United S t a t e s

n a t i o n a l

and

not

a

United

States

c i t i z e n .

C.A.

App.

27, 36

- 3 7 .

Thus,

p e t i t i o n e r s are

c i t i z e n s nowhere,

even

as

American

Samoans have no

other

sovereign

except

the United S t a t e s .

b .

The i v e

i n d i v i d u a l

p e t i t i o n e r s were

born in American

Samoa.

Ex.

A, t 3 .

Each

has

served

in

the

U.S.

armed f o r c e s

or in other

p u b l i c - s e r v i c e

o c c u p a t i o n s .

C.A.

App. 11

- 1 7 .

Notwithstanding

h e i r b i r t h on

o v e r e i g n

U.S.

o i l

and

t h e i r

s e r v i c e

t o

the

Z

Swains

I s l a n d

i s a l s o

l i s t e d as an

o u t l y i n g

p o s s e s s i o [ n ] ,

8 .S.C. §

1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 2 9 ) ,

but t

i s

d e f i n e d

by t a t u t e

as apart

of American Samoa, 48 .S.C.§

1662.



c o u n t r y , they a r e d e p r i v e d

of

U.S.

c i t i z e n s h i p and

the

b e n e f i t s

that f l o w

from

i t

l a b e l e d

i n s t e a d

with

the

subordinate and

i n f e r i o r

s t a t u s

of ` n o n -c i t i z e n n a t i o n a [ 1 ) . '

Ex. A,

at 3 . These

p e t i t i o n e r s ,

along

with p e t i t i o n e r

S a m o an

Federation

of

America,

brought u i t a g a i n s t the

United

S t a t e s and

v a r i o u s

o f f i c e r s

and

a g e n c i e s

(respondents

here)

h a l l e n g i n g

8 .S.C.

§

408(1)

and State

Department o l i c i e s

implementing

t as

u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

under the


Clause.

Ex.

A,

at

4 .

T h e

d i s t r i c t

c o u r t

dismissed

p e t i t i o n e r ' s s u i t

under

Federal

R u le

of i v i l

Procedure 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) .

I b i d .

T h e

c o u r t of appeals

a f f i r m e d .

Ex. A,

at

4

2 3 . I t

held

that i t

i s

ambig uo us

whether

t e r r i t o r i e s s i t u a t e d

l i k e

American

Samoa

r e ` w i t h i n ' the

United S t a t e s

f o r

purposes

of

the

[ C i t i z e n s h i p ]

[ C ] l a u s e .

I d .

at 7 .

In doing

s o ,

the c o u r t dismissed

as

` n o t

impressive ' statements

b y

the

Fourteenth

Amendment's

Framers

that

i t w as

intended t o encompass

S t a t e s ,

T e r r i t o r i e s ,

and the D i s t r i c t

of

Co l um bia a l i k e .

I b i d .

( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) .

And

i t w a s

unconvinced that

Won g

Kim rk's

r e c o g n i t i o n that the

Clause r e a f f i r m e d

in

the

mo s t

e x p l i c i t

and

comprehensive terms

the

fundamental

p r i n c i p l e

of


b y

b i r t h

within

the

dominion

(169

U.S. at

675)

speaks

t o

whether

the Clause

c o n f e r s

b i r t h r i g h t


in

U.S.

e r r i t o r i e s .

Ex. A,

t7

- 1 1 .

I n s t e a d , the

c o u r t of appeals held

that

the scope

of

the


Clause, as

a p p l i e d t o

t e r r i t o r i e s , may ot b e

r e a d i l y

d i s c e r n e d

from

the

p l a i n

t e x t

or other i n d i c i a

of the

framers'

n t e n t , absent

r e s o r t t o the . . .

a n a l y t i c a l framework of

the

I n s u l a r

Cases—

e r i e s

of

e a r l y

20th

century

d e c i s i o n s

addressing wholly

d i s t i n c t

i s s u e s

of

revenue

c o l l e c t i o n and

c r i m i n a l

procedure

in

the c o n t e x t

of

e r r i t o r i e s

newly a c q u i r e d

through

c o n q u e s t .

Ex.

A, at

1 2 .

Under the

I n s u l a r

Cases'

framework,

the

c o u r t

of



appeals

held that the


Clause does

not

guarantee


t o

persons

born in

American

S a m o a

because b i r t h r i g h t


i s

not a

fundamental r i g h t —

o n the

b a s i s

that i t i s

a m o n g

t h o s e

a r t i f i c i a l , p r o c e d u r a l ,

o r

remedial

r i g h t s

i d i o s y n c r a t i c t o

the

American

s o c i a l

compact —and ecause the c o u r t

concluded

that

r e c o g n i t i o n of

the

r i g h t

t o

b i r t h r i g h t


wo ul d

prove

` i m p r a c t i c a b l e

a n d

anomalous. '

I d .

at 15,

1 8

c i t a t i o n s

o m i t t e d ) ;

s e e i d .

at

1 4

- 2 2 .

P e t i t i o n e r s sought

r e h e a r i n g , which, f t e r

requesting

a response,the c o u r t d e n i e d .

n

a n c

Ord e r 1 .

2 . P e t i t i o n e r s ' c h a l l e n g e

t o

the

c o u r t of a p p e a l s '

holding

that

the


Clause

permits Congress t o

d e n y


t o

U.S.

a t i o n a l s

born

i n

a U.S.

e r r i t o r y

r a i s e s a

o n s t i t u t i o n a l

q u e s t i o n of

great

importance

that

warrants

t h i s

C o u r t ' s

r e v i e w .

At

stake i s

the

m e a n i n g

of

a

c o r e

c o n s t i t ut i o n a l p r o v i s i o n ,

c e n t r a l

t o the

R e c o n s t r u c t i o n

A m e n d m e n t s ,

that s e t s the boundaries

of

one

of

the

m o s t b a s i c


r i g h t s :

c i t i z e n s h i p , o n

w h ic h

many

ther

r i g h t s

a r e

premised.

T h e

c o u r t of a p p e a l s '

d e c i s i o n a l s o

c o n f l i c t s

with

t h i s

C o u r t ' s p r e c e d e n t s ,

i n c l u d i n g

Wong

Kim

r k ,

169 U.S.

649,

w h ic h

m a d e

c l e a r

that the


Clause

m u s t be i n t e r p r e t e d

i n

the

l i g h t

of

the

common aw ,

the p r i n c i p l e s a n d

h i s t o r y of

w h ic h

w e r e

a m i l i a r l y

k n o w n

t o the framers

of

the

C o n s t i t u t i o n ,

a n d

that t he

Clause

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d the

common

-law

r u l e

of

jus s o l i .

I d . at

654,

675,

693. More

r e c e n t l y ,

the

Cour t h a s

s t a t e d that [ t ] h e

C o n s t i t u t i o n

grants

Congress

a n d

th e

President

the

p o w e r

t o a c q u i r e ,

d i s p o s e

o f ,

a n d

govern t e r r i t o r y ,

but

not the

p o w e r

o

d e c i d e w h e n

a n d

w h e r e [ t h e

C o n s t i t u t i o n ' s ] te rm s

a p p l y .

B o u m e d i e n e

v .

B us h ,

5 5 3 U.S. 723,

76 5

2008)

em p h a s i s added).



The

court

of

appeals

erroneously

b e l i e v e d

i t s e l f

bound

to

reach

a

contrary

conclusion

by

the

Insular

Cases.

Those cases are

inapposite;

they did n o t

concern

the

Citizenship Clause

or

Ame rica n

Samoa. And

as t h i s

Co u r t

explained

i n

Boumediene

[ i ] t

may

well

be

that

over

time

the t i e s

between

the United States and

a n y

of i t s

unincorporated

T e r r i t o r i e s

strengthen

in

w a y s

that are

of


s i g n i f i c a n c e .

553

U.S.

at 758.

To the

extent the

Insular

Cases could be

read to

allow

denying


to

persons

born

in current

U.S. e r r i t o r i e s , they are

incompatible

w i th

the

Constitution and should be c l a r i f i e d

o r ,

i f

necessary abrogated.

There i s

neither a n y

need

n o r

j u s t i f i c a t i o n

t o

a wa i t

a

d i r e c t

c i r c u i t

c o n f l i c t .

Other

c i r c u i t s

likewise

have

mistakenly

r e l i e d

o n

the

Insular Cases to hold that the

Citizenship

Clause does n ot

apply in

U.S. t e r r i t o r i e s .

O n l y

t h i s

C o u r t

c a n provide

d e f i n i t i v e guidance

regarding

the

m e a n i n g

of

t s

precedents

and

f

needed

modify

or

overrule

them.

3.

Co u n sel of record

had

n o

involvement

i n the proceedings

below

a nd

was

retained

only

recently t o

prepare

a e t i t i o n

f o r

a

rit

of

e r t i o r a r i .

Additional

time

i s

necessary

i n

order

to

permit

counsel

t o

review the

record

below

research

the

relevant

l e g a l

issues

i n

the case a nd

prepare and

f i l e a

e t i t i o n

that

would be

h e l p f u l

to the

Court.

Undersigned

counsel

a l s o

h a s

s i g n i f i c a n t

p r o f e s s i o n a l

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

in other

pending

matters

ncluding

b r i e f i n g

and

preparation

o r o r a l

a r g u m e n t

in

t h i s

Co u r t

in

Bank

Ma r k a z i

v. Peterson

No.

14

-770

U . S . ) . P e t i t i o n e r s

are n o t a w a r e

of a n y

party

that

would be

prejudiced by the

granting of

a 3

-day

extension.

Accordingly


r e s p e c t f u l l y

request that

t h e i r

time t o f i l e a

e t i t i o n f o r

a writ

of e r t i o r a r i

be

extended

by 3 ays o a nd

including M o nda y February 1 2016.

~



Respectfully

submitted.

NEIL

C.

EAR,E

WE

HE EOPLE

PROJECT

1666

Conne c tic u t Ave.,

N.W., ui te

500

Washington,

D.C.

20009

202)

304-1202

nw re

@equalri ghts now. rg

THEODORE

S.

OLSON

C o un s e l

of

e co rd

MATTHEW .

CGILL

JONATHAN

C.

BOND

~TACOB

T.

SPENCER

GIBSON,Dur~v

RUTCxER

LLP

1050

Connecticut

Av enu e,

N.W.

CHARLESV.

LA ILIMA

Washington,

D.C.

20036

ALA ILIMA

AND

ASSOCIATESP.C.

202)955-8500

P.O.

Box 1118

t o l s o n

@gibsondunn.com

N u u u l i ,

AS 96799

684)699

-6732

D e c e m b e r 14,2015

Counsel

o r


D



T



t ~ i

;CA

Cast

~ 7~ ~ c ~ ~

m

a t

X1555940

~ i ~ ~ ;0

0512

15 Pete

c ~ ~

~

FOR

THE

ISTRICTOF

COLUMBIA

CIRCUIT

Argued

February

9,

015

Decided

June 5,

015

No.

13

-5272

LENEUOTI IAFIA

TUAUA

T

L.,

APPELLANTS

V.

UNITED

STATES

OF

AMERICA T L.,

APPELLEES

AMERICAN

SAMOA

GOVERNMENTANDAUMUA

AMATA

INTERVENORS

Appeal

from

h e United S t a t e s

D i s t r i c t

Court

f o r t h e

D i s t r i c t of olumbia

No.

: 1 2

c v

01143)

N e i l C. Weare

argued

t h e

cause o r a p p e l l a n t s .

With him

on

t h e b r i e f s

were Robert

.

Katerberg,

Murad S .

Hussain,

E l l i o t t

C.

Mogul,

nd

Dawn

.

Yam a n e

Hewett.

J e s s i c a

Ring

Amu nson and

Erica

L.

Ross

were

on t h e

b r i e f f o r amicus

c u r i a e David

B. Cohen

i n

s u p p o r t

of

a p p e l l a n t s .

David

.

Debold

and Molly

M.

l a f l i n were

on t h e b r i e f

f o r amici

u r i a e

C i t i z e n s h i p S c h o l a r s

i n

s u p p o r t of

p p e l l a n t s .



USCA Cass

~

-

272

I ~ c ~ c ~ ~ m ~ n t

~

5

9~0

i i e c l : C 3 6

/ C }

f201 Pale

~ i f

~3

2

Eugene

D.

Gulland was on t h e

b r i e f f o r

a r n i c i c u r i a e

C e r t a i n

Members of Congress and

Former

Government

O f f i c i a l s

i n

s u p p o r t

of

p p e l l a n t s .

Krim

M. a l l e n t i n e ,

f i l e d

t h e b r i e f as amicus c u r i a e i n

s u p p o r t

of

p p e l l a n t .

Wynne

P.

K e l l y ,

A s s i s t a n t U.S.

A t t o r n e y ,

axgued

t h e

c a u s e f o r

a p p e l l e e s .

With him on

t h e

b r i e f

were Ronald C.

Machen

r . ,

U.S.

t t o r n e y ,

and

R.

Craig

Lawrence,

s s i s t a n t

U.S.

t t o r n e y .

Michael

F.

W i l l i a m s argued

t h e

cause and

f i l e d t h e

b r i e f

f o r i n t e r v e n o r s f o r

a p p e l l e e

American S amoa Government

and Congresswoman

Aumua mata.

Paul

R.Q.

W o l f s o n ,

Dina B. Mishra,

and

Adam K l e i n

were on

t h e b r i e f f o r amici c u r i a e

S c h o l a r s

of o n s t i t u t i o n a l

Law nd Legal H i s t o r y i n s u p p o r t of e i t h e r

p a r t y .

B e f o r e :

BROwty,

C i r c u i t

Judge,

and

S I L B E R t v i A N

and

S E N T E i , ~ , E , Senior

C i r c u i t Judges.

BROwty,

C i r c u i t

Judge:

I n our c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p u b l i c ,

J u s t i c e

Brandeis

o b s e r v e d , t h e t i t l e of i t i z e n

i s

s u p e r i o r

t o t h e

t i t l e of P r e s i d e n t . Thus, t h e q u e s t i o n s

[w]ho i s

t h e

c i t i z e n [?]

and

what

s

t h e meaning of h e

term

?

r i s t o t l e ,

P o l i t i c s bk. 3, r e p r i n t e d i n part i n

READINGS

~ N PoL~TICAL

Px~LOSOPxY

55, 61

F r a n c i s W.

oker e d . ,

1 9 3 8 ) ,

a r e

no l e s s

t h a n t h e

q u e s t i o n s of who o n s t i t u t e s t h e s o v e r e i g n

s t a t e?

and

what

i s t h e meaning

of

s t a t e h o o d

a s

an

a s s o c i a t i o n?

We

r e

c a l l e d

upon

t o r e s o l v e

one

naxrow

c i r c u m s t a n c e

i m p l i c a t i n g

t h e s e weighty i n q u i r i e s .

A p p e l l a n t s

a r e

i n d i v i d u a l s born i n t h e United S t a t e s t e r r i t o r y of American



USGA base

`

-527 ~nc~~m~nt

X40

~ i l e c i :

C ~ 6

/0

1 ~ t ~ 1 5 Pace

f ~

c

Samoa.

S t a t u t o r i l y deemed

non-

c i t i z e n n a t i o n a l s a t

b i r t h ,

t h e y argue

t h e

F o u r t e e n t h

Amendment's

C i t i z e n s h i p Clause

a f f o r d s

them

c i t i z e n s h i p by

d i n t

of

b i r t h r i g h t .

They

a r e

opposed

not

merely by

t h e United

S t a t e s b u t by

t h e

d e m o c r a t i c a l l y

e l e c t e d

government

of h e

American

Samoan

p e o p l e .

We

ympathize w i t h

A p p e l l a n t s ' .

i n d i v i d u a l

p l i g h t s ,

a p p a r e n t l y more

f r e i g h t e d

w i t h

duty

and

s a c r i f i c e

t h a n

b e n e f i t s

and

p r i v i l e g e ,

but h e


Clause s

t e x t u a l l y

ambiguous

s t o

whether in

t h e

United

S t a t e s

encompasses

America's

u n i n c o r p o r a t e d t e r r i t o r i e s

and we

hold t

i m p r a c t i c a l

and

anomalous,

e e

Reid

.

C o v e r t ,

354

U.S.

,

75 1957),

o

impose

i t i z e n s h i p by

u d i c i a l f i a t

—where oing

so

r e q u i r e s us

t o

o v e r r i d e

t h e

d e m o c r a t i c

p r e r o g a t i v e s

of

h e

American

Samoan

p e o p l e

t h e m s e l v e s .

The

judgment of h e

d i s t r i c t

c o u r t i s

a f f i r m e d ; t h e


Clause

does

not

e x t e n d

b i r t h r i g h t


t o

t h o s e born

i n

American

Samoa.

I

The South

P a c i f i c

i s l a n d s

of

American

Samoa

have

been

a

United

S t a t e s

t e r r i t o r y

s i n c e

1900,

when

t h e

t r a d i t i o n a l

l e a d e r s

of t h e

Samoan

I s l a n d s of

T u t u i l a and

Aunu'u

v o l u n t a r i l y

ceded

t h e i r

s o v e r e i g n

a u t h o r i t y

t o

t h e United

S t a t e s

Government.

See

I n s t r u m e n t of

ession

by

h e

C h i e f s

of u t u i l a I s l a n d s

t o

United S t a t e s

Government, .S.-

T u t u i l a ,

Apr.

17,

1900.

Today t h e

American

Samoan

t e r r i t o r y

i s

p a r t i a l l y s e l f -

governed,

p o s s e s s i n g

a

p o p u l a r l y

e l e c t e d

b i c a m e r a l

l e g i s l a t u r e

and

s i m i l a r l y e l e c t e d

g o v e r n o r . l

Complaint

t

13

¶

7,

uaua

.


951 F.

Supp.

2d

lthough

t

p o s s e s s e s

s i g n i f i c a n t

i n s t i t u t i o n s

of

l o c a l

s e l f -

governance

American

Samoa s

c l a s s i f i e d a s

a non

- s e l f -

governing

t e r r i t o r y

by h e

United

Nations

General

Assembly.

See e n e r a l l y

U.N.

h a r t e r ch.

XI.



USCA

~ . s e

r ~ 1

-

7

D c ~ c ~ ~ r ~ ~

r a t

r , 1

94~}

f i l e d : Q6

/ 0 5 t 2 C ~ 1 Pace

~

i f 3

88

D.D.C.

2013)

No. 12

- c v -01143).

The

t e r r i t o r y ,

however,

remains

under

t h e

u l t i m a t e

s u p e r v i s i o n

of

h e

S e c r e t a r y of

h e

I n t e r i o r .

See

Exec.

Order

No.

10,264 June

29,

1951)

( t r a n s f e r r i n g

s u p e r v i s o r y

a u t h o r i t y

from

t h e

S e c r e t a r y

of

t h e

Navy

o

t h e

S e c r e t a r y

of h e

I n t e r i o r ) .

Unlike

t h o s e

born

i n

t h e United

S t a t e s '

o t h e r

c u r r e n t

t e r r i t o r i a l

p o s s e s s i o n s

—who

r e

s t a t u t o r i l y deemed

American

c i t i z e n s a t

b i r t h e c t i o n

308 1)

of

t h e

Immigration

a n d

N a t i o n a l i t y

Act of

1952

d e s i g n a t e s

p e r s o n s born

i n

American

S a m o a

as

n on

-

c i t i z e n n a t i o n a l s . 2

See

8

U.S.C.

§

4 0 8 ( 1 ) .

Below,

p p e l l a n t s

c h a l l e n g e d

s e c t i o n 3 0 8 ( 1 ) , a s w e l l a s

S t a t e

Department

p o l i c i e s

a n d

p r a c t i c e s

implementing t h e

s t a t u t e ,

s e e ,

e . g . , 7

FAM

§

1 2 5 . 1 ( b ) , on

C i t i z e n s h i p C l a u s e

grounds

a n d

under

t h e

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e

Procedure

Act.

The

d i s t r i c t

c o u r t r e j e c t e d

A p p e l l a n t s '

arguments

and

d i s m i s s e d

t h e

c a s e

f o r

f a i l u r e

t o

s t a t e a

c l a i m

upon

which r e l i e f

can

be

g r a n t e d .

Tuaua

v United

S t a t e s ,

951

F. Supp. 2d 88,

9 4

D.D.C.

2013);

see a l s o

FED.

R.

Clv. P .

1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) . On

a p p e a l

A p p e l l a n t s

r e a s s e r t o n l y

t h e i r


c l a i m .

O u r

review

i s de

novo.

A t h e r t o n

v

D.C. O f f i c e of

Mayor,

567

Fad

72,

681 D.C.

i r . 2009).

I I

The


Clause of

t h e

F o u r t e e n t h

A m e n d m e n t

p r o v i d e s

t h a t

[ a ] 1 1 p e r s o n s

born

o r

n a t u r a l i z e d i n t h e United

S t a t e s ,

and

s u b j e c t

t o

t h e


t h e r e o f , a r e c i t i z e n s

of

t h e

United S t a t e s and

of

h e S t a t e

wherein

t h e y

r e s i d e . U.S.

CoNST. amend .

XIV, § ,

c l .

1 .

Both

A p p e l l a n t s and

t h e

z

Persons born

i n

t h e

P h i l i p p i n e s d u r i n g t h e

t e r r i t o r i a l p e r i o d ,

which

ended

i n

1946, were

l i k e w i s e

s t a t u t o r i l y

d e s i g n a t e d

n on - c i t i z e n

n a t i o n a l s .



~JSCA

~~se

-5272

~ X1

940

f i l e d :

(~6f051201 Pace5

f

~3

5

United S t a t e s government3

a g r e e

t h e

t e x t a n d s t r u c t u r e o f

h e

F o u r t e e n t h

A m e n d m e n t

unambiguously l e a d s t o

a

s i n g l e

i n e x o r a b l e

c o n c l u s i o n a s t o

whether

American

Sa m o a

i s

w i t h i n t h e

United S t a t e s

f o r

purposes

of t h e

c l a u s e .

Th e y

m a t e r i a l l y

d i s a g r e e o n l y a s t o

whether

t h e

i n e s c a p a b l e

c o n c l u s i o n

t o

be

d r a w n

i s

whether

American

Sa m o a

i s

o r

i s

not apart o f t h e

United S t a t e s .

See

g e n e r a l l y

JOHN

BARTLETT,

BARTLETT'S

FAMILIAR QUOTATIONS

( 1 7 t h e d .

2002)

Th e

e v i l

i s

i n t h e

d e t a i l [ s ] . ) .

I7

A p p e l l a n t s

r e l y o n a

comparison o f h e

f i r s t

and

s e c o n d

c l a u s e s

o f h e

F o u r t e e n t h

A m e n d m e n t— t h e


an d

Apportionment

C l a u s e s ,

r e s p e c t i v e l y .

T h ey

a r g u e

t h e former

i s

framed e x p a n s i v e l y

t h r o u g h u s e

o f h e o v e r a r c h i n g

term i n

t h e U n i t e d

S t a t e s ,

U.S.

CoNST. ame nd.

XIV,§

1 ,

l

1 ,

w h i l e

t h e

l a t t e r s p e a k s

n a r r o w l y

i n

terms of

a p p o r t i o n m e n t

of

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

a m o n g t h e

s e v e r a l S t a t e s , U.S.

CoNST.

amend.

XIV, § 1 , c l 2

emphasis

a d d e d ) . I n

c o n t r a s t , t h e

A p p e l l e e s

look

t o

d i f f e r e n c e s

between t h e

T h i r t e e n t h and

F o u r t e e n t h

Ame n d m e n t . 4

P a r t l y r e l y i n g

o n

d i c t u m

from

3

Unlike

h e

United

S t a t e s

Govern me n t,

n t e r v e n o r s

— t h e American

Sam o a n

G o v e r n m e n t

an d

Congressman

F ale o m av ae g a—

e x c l u s i v e l y

argue


i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

i s

f o r e c l o s e d by

p r e c e d e n t s fr om

h e

I n s u l a r c a s e

l i n e .

4

T h e

United S t a t e s

G o v e r n m e n t a l s o a r g u e s ,

e v e n

i f P l a i n t i f f s

w e r e

c o r r e c t

t h a t . . . t h e

F o u r t e e n t h

A m e n d m e n t h o u l d

g e n e r a l l y

c o n f e r

b i r t h r i g h t

c i t i z e n s h i p [ , ]

...Congress's i r e c t

m o d i f i c a t i o n

o f

t h a t s t a t u s b y

s t a t u t e

trumps t h a t

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

B r i e f

o f

Respon d e n t

-Appellee

a t 26,

N o . 1 3

-5272

D.C.

i r . Aug. 11,

2014)

( r e l y i n g

o n

Rog ers

v .

B e l l e i ,

401

U.S. 81 5,

828

( 1 9 7 1 ) ) .

This

argume n t

i s n o v e l ,

i f

c u r i o u s .

Y e t i t e r r o n e o u s l y

c o n f l a t e s

Congress's

broad p o w e r s

over

n a t u r a l i z a t i o n

w i t h

a u t h o r i t y t o


a b r o g a t e t h e

scope o f

b i r t h r i g h t

c i t i z e n s h i p a v a i l a b l e



~1~~A

Case

~

-5272 Document

` 1 5

94~

i l e ~ 1 :

Q6f0~12

1

Page

c i f

2

J u s t i c e Brown's

judgment

f o r

t h e

Supreme

Court

i n

Downes

.

B i d w e l l ,

182 U.S.

244

(1901),

h e

United

S t a t e s

Government

a r g u e s

t h e

T h i r t e e n t h

Amendment

. p r o h i b i t s

s l a v e r y

w i t h i n

t h e United

S t a t e s ,

or any lace

u b j e c t

t o

t h e i r

j u r i s d i c t i o n ,

i d . a t

251

(emphasis

a d d e d ) ,

w h i l e t h e

F o u r t e e n t h

Amendment's


Clause

a p p l i e s t o

p e r s o n s

born

n t h e

United

S t a t e s , . and

s u b j e c t t o

t h e


t h e r e o f ,

i d .

(emphasis

d d e d ) .

According o t h e

Government

t h e

T h i r t e e n t h Amendment's

p h r a s e o l o g y

c o n t e m p l a t e s

a r e a s

not

a a r t

of

h e

Union,

which]

a ] r e

s t i l l

s u b j e c t

t o

t h e


of

h e United

S t a t e s ,

w h i l e

t h e

F o u r t e e n t h

Amendment n c o r p o r a t e s

a

l i m i t a t i o n

t o p e r s o n s

born

r

n a t u r a l i z e d

i n t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s ,

which

s

n o t e x t e n d e d

t o

p e r s o n s

born

i n any

p l a c e

` s u b j e c t t o

t h e i r

j u r i s d i c t i o n . '

I d .

N e i t h e r

argument

s f u l l y

p e r s u a s i v e ,

nor does

t s q u a r e l y

r e s o l v e

t h e meaning

of h e

ambiguous

p h r a s e in

t h e

U n i t e d

S t a t e s .

The

e x t and

t r u c t u r e

a l o n e a r e

i n s u f f i c i e n t

t o

d i v i n e

t h e

C i t i z e n s h i p C l a u s e ' s

g e o g r a p h i c

s c o p e . The

d i f f e r e n c e

between t h e


and

Apportionment

C l a u s e s

c o u l d

s u g g e s t

t h e

former

has

a

b r o a d e r r e a c h

than

t h e

l a t t e r .

See

U n i t e d S t a t e s

v .

Diaz-

Guerrero,

132 F.

App'x 739,

740-41

( 9 t h C i r .

2005) I t

i s

awell-

e s t a b l i s h e d canon

of

t a t u t o r y

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

t h a t t h e use

of

i f f e r e n t words r

terms

w i t h i n

a

s t a t u t e

d e m o n s t r a t e s

. .

[ i n t e n t ] t o

convey

a

d i f f e r e n t

meaning o r t h o s e

words . . . ) .

But,

even f h i s

i s t h e c a s e ,


argument

does n o t

r e s o l v e t h e

q u e s t i o n a t

i s s u e

because

b o t h

t e x t

and

s t r u c t u r e a r e

s i l e n t a s

t o

t h e p r e c i s e

c o n t o u r s

of

h e

United

S t a t e s

under h e


C l a u s e .

under h e


i t s e l f .

C o n g r e s s ' s

a u t h o r i t y

f o r t h e

l a t t e r

i s

w a n t i n g . See

g e n e r a l l y

Marburg

v .

Madison, 5

U.S. 1

Cranch)

137,

178

1803)

[T]he

c o n s t i t u t i o n i s

s u p e r i o r

t o

any

o r d i n a r y

a c t

of

h e

l e g i s l a t u r e .

) .



USDA Case

X13- ~ ; ~ 7

Dc~cumer~t

~ X5940

f i l e d : 0 6 1 C } 5 1

1

Pare

7

~

23

7

Even

i f United

S t a t e s i s

b r o a d e r t h a n

among t h e s e v e r a l

S t a t e s , i t

remains ambiguous

whether

t e r r i t o r i e s s i t u a t e d l i k e

American Samoa

a r e

within t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s f o r p u r p o s e s

of

t h e c l a u s e .

T h e

Government's

argument

i s

s i m i l a r l y

i n c o m p l e t e .

While

t h e language

of t h e

T h i r t e e n t h

A m e n d m e n t

may

be

b r o a d e r

t h a n t h a t found

i n

t h e


C l a u s e , t h i s

comparison y i e l d s

no d i s p o s i t i v e

i n s i g h t

a s t o

w h e t h e r

t h e


C l a u s e ' s use

of h e

term

United S t a t e s

i n c l u d e s

American Samoa

o r

s i m i l a r l y

s i t u a t e d t e r r i t o r i e s .

A p p e l l a n t s

r e l y

on

s c a t t e r e d s t a t e m e n t s

from

t h e

l e g i s l a t i v e

h i s t o r y

t o

b o l s t e r

t h e i r

t e x t u a l argument.

S e e ,

e . g . ,

Corn.

GLOBE,

39Tx Corn.,

1s T SESS.

2890,

2894 (1866)

[The


Clause] r e f e r s t o

p e r s o n s

everywhere,

whether i n t h e

S t a t e s ,

o r i n t h e

T e r r i t o r i e s o r

i n

t h e

D i s t r i c t of

Columbia. )

s t a t e m e n t

of Sen.

T r u m b u l l ) .

[T]he


h i s t o r y

of t h e

F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t . .

.like most

o t h e r


h i s t o r y ,

c o n t a i n s

many s t a t e m e n t s

from which

c o n f l i c t i n g

i n f e r e n c e s

can be

drawn . . . .

Afroyim

v . Rusk,

387

U.S. 253, 267

(1967).

Here,

and a s a

g e n e r a l

m a t t e r ,

[ i ] s o l a t e d

s t a t e m e n t s

. a r e

not i m p r e s s i v e


h i s t o r y .

Garcia

v .

United

t a t e s ,

469

U.S.

70,78

1984).

A p p e l l a n t s

and Ami ci

C u r i a e

f u r t h e r

contend

t h e


Clause m u s t

— un d e r

Supre m e

Court

precedent—

be

r e a d

i n

l i g h t of h e

common

aw

t r a d i t i o n

of

u s o l i o r t h e

r i g h t

of

t h e

s o i l .

See

U n i t e d

S t a t e s v

Wong

K i m

Ask,

169

U.S. 649,

654

(1898)

T h e c o n s t i t u t i o n nowhere

d e f i n e s

t h e

meaning

of

[ t h e word

c i t i z e n

] , e i t h e r by wa y

of

i n c l u s i o n

o r

of

e x c l u s i o n ,

e x c e p t

i n

so

f a r

as

t h i s

i s

done

by

t h e

a f f i r m a t i v e

d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t

` a l l

p e r s o n s

born

o r

n a t u r a l i z e d

i n t h e


and

s u b j e c t

t o

t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n



LJSCA

Case

~~ -5272

D~cum r ~ ~

r ~ 1 594C}

i C e c 9 ; 06f0 1 2 t ~ 1 5

Pace8

~ f

~

8

t h e r e o f , a r e

c i t i z e n s of

h e United

S t a t e s . '

I n

t h i s ,

a s i n

o t h e r

r e s p e c t s ,

i t

must

be

i n t e r p r e t e d

i n

t h e

l i g h t of

h e common

law,

t h e

p r i n c i p l e s

a nd

h i s t o r y

of which

were

f a m i l i a r l y

k n o w n

t o

t h e

framers

of h e

c o n s t i t u t i o n .

)

i n t e r n a l

c i t a t i o n

o m i t t e d ) .

The

o c t r i n e

of

us

o l i

i s

an

n h e r i t a n c e from

t h e

E n g l i s h

common

law.

Those born

w i t h i n

t h e

King's

dom a i n an d

w i t h i n

t h e

obedience o r

l i g e a n c e of h e

K i n g

were

s u b j e c t s

of

h e

K ing ,

r

c i t i z e n s

i n

mo d e r n

p a r l a n c e . See

C a l v i n ' s

Case,

77

E n g .

Rep.

77;

3 9 9

1608).

Th e

domai n

of

h e

K i n g

was

d e f i n e d

b r o a d l y .

I t

extended beyond

t h e

B r i t i s h

I s l e s

t o

i n c l u d e ,

f o r

example,

e r s o n s

born

i n

t h e

American c o l o n i e s .

I n g l i s

v

T r u s t e e s

of

a i l o r ' s

S nu g

Harbor, 28 U.S.

3

P e t . )

99,

20

-21

1830).

A f t e r

independence

h e

former

o l o n i e s

c o n t i n u e d t o

look

t o

t h e

E n g l i s h

common

law

r u l e .

S e e ,

e . g . ,

i d .

a t

1 64-65.

Following

t h e

C o n s t i t u t i o n ' s

r a t i f i c a t i o n t h e

p r i n c i p a l

e x c e p t i o n

t o jus

o l i w as

o r

A f r i c a n

Americans

born i n

t h e


s e e D r e d

c o t t

v Sanford,

60

U.S. 1 9

H o w . )

393,

04

—OS

1857);

an

e x c e p t i o n

n e c e s s a r i l y

r e p u d i a t e d

w i t h

t h e

r a t i f i c a t i o n

of

h e

F o u r t e e n t h

A m e n d m e n t .

Relying on

t h e

Supreme

C o u r t ' s

o p i n i o n

i n

United S t a t e s

v Wo n g

K i m

Ark,

169

U.S.

649,

p p e l l a n t s

a nd

Amici

C u r i a e

a c c o r d i n g l y

a r g u e

t h e

g e o g r a p h i c

scope

of h e

F o u r t e e n t h

Am e n d m e n t 's


Clause

should be

r e a d

e x p a n s i v e l y

a s

t h e

5

During

the p r e

-

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p e r i o d

of

o n f e d e r a t i o n ,

[ p ] a u p e r s ,

vagabonds and

f u g i t i v e s

from

j u s t i c e w e r e

excepted

from t h e

p r i v i l e g e s a nd

immunities

of

r e e

c i t i z e n s i n t h e

several

t a t e s .

ARTICLES OF

CONFEDERATION,

r t .

IV

emphasis

a d d e d ) .

I t was

only

a f t e r

t h e

a d o p t i o n

of

t h e

C o n s t i t u t i o n [ t h a t ]

i t

became

n e c e s s a r y

i n

m a n y

c a s e s t o

d e t e r m i n e

whether

an

i n d i v i d u a l

i n

a

g i v e n

c a s e w as a

i t i z e n

of

h e

U n i t e d

S t a t e s .

Peter Hand

Co.

United t a t e s ,

2

.2d

449, 52

7 t h C i r .

1924) emphasis

d d e d ) .



~

domain of

t h e

s o v e r e i g n

under

background

jus

s o l i

p r i n c i p l e s .

We a r e

unconvinced,

however, t h a t

Wong Kim Ar k

r e f l e c t s t h e


c o d i f i c a t i o n

of h e

common aw

r u l e

as

a p p l i e d t o

o u t l y i n g t e r r i t o r i e s .

As

h e

Ninth

C i r c u i t n o t e d

i n

Rabang INS ,

h e e x p a n s i v e

language

of

Wong Kim

Ar k

must

be

r e a d

w i t h t h e

u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t

t h e

c a s e

i n v o l v e d a

p e r s o n

born

i n

San F r a n c i s c o ,

C a l i f o r n i a .

The

a c t t h a t he

had

been born

` w i t h i n

t h e t e r r i t o r y '

of

t h e

United S t a t e s

was

u n d i s p u t e d , and

made

i t

u n n e c e s s a r y

t o d e f i n e

` t e r r i t o r y '

r i g o r o u s l y

o r d e c i d e

whether

` t e r r i t o r y ' i n i t s

b r o a d e r

s e n s e

meant

` i n

t h e

United S t a t e s '

under

t h e


C l a u s e .

35

F.3d 1449,

1454

9 t h C i r .

1 9 9 4 ) ; accord

Nolos v .

Holder,

611

F.3d

279,

84 5 t h C i r .

2010);

Valmonte

INS, 1 36

F.3d

914 , 9 2 0

(2d C i r .

1 9 9 8 ) . 6

I t i s a

maxim,

n o t t o

be

d i s r e g a r d e d ,

t h a t

g e n e r a l

e x p r e s s i o n s , i n

every

o p i n i o n , a r e t o

be

t a k e n i n

c o n n e c t i o n

w i t h

t h e

c a s e i n which

t h o s e

e x p r e s s i o n s

a r e u s e d .

I f t h e y

go

beyond t h e

c a s e , t h e y may

be

r e s p e c t e d , b u t

ought

not

t o c o n t r o l

t h e

judgment i n

a

subsequent

s u i t

w h e n t h e v e r y

p o i n t i s

p r e s e n t e d

f o r

d e c i s i o n .

Wong Kim

Ark,

169

U.S.

t

679.

~

Because t may l s o

bear

upon t h e

i m p r a c t i c a l and

anomalousness

i n q u i r y , we

ote

the

v a s t

p r a c t i c a l

consequences

of

e p a r t i n g

from

our

i s t e r

c i r c u i t s '

d e c i s i o n s .

Despite


c o n t e n t i o n s

to

h e

c o n t r a r y ,

t h e r e

i s no

m a t e r i a l

d i s t i n c t i o n

between

n a t i o n a l s

born

i n

American

Samoa

and

those

born

i n

the

P h i l i p p i n e s

p r i o r

t o

i t s

independence i n 1946.

Contra

Brief o r

P e t i t i o n e r -

Appellant t 42

43

attempting

t o

d i s t i n g u i s h

the P h i l i p p i n e s

c o n t e x t

because

t h a t

t e r r i t o r y

w as

a c q u i r e d

v i a

conquest

and

because i t wa s

always

t h e

purpose of

t h e United

S t a t e s

t o e v e n t u a l l y

withdraw

i t s

s o v e r e i g n t y ) .

T h e

x t e n s i o n

of

i t i z e n s h i p

t o t h e

American

Samoan

people

would

n e c e s s a r i l y

i m p l i c a t e t h e United

S t a t e s


s t a t u s

of

persons

born

i n

the

P h i l i p p i n e s during t h e


p e r i o d—and

o t e n t i a l l y t h e i r

c h i l d r e n

through o p e r a t i o n

of

t a t u t e .



USCA has

~ . 3

- 5 2 ~ 7 ~

[ t c ~ ~ ~ ~ r t e n t

~ ` t ~ . 5 ~ ~

X 6 0

f i l e d :

06f0~1201 F ~ a e ~

~ ~

2

10

And

even assuming

h e f r a m e r s

i n t e n d e d

t h e


Clause

o

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y

c o d i f y

jus

o l i

p r i n c i p l e s ,

b i r t h r i g h t


does

n o t

simply

f o l l o w t h e

f l a g . S i n c e

i t s

c o n c e p t i o n jus

s o l i

has

i n c o r p o r a t e d a

r e q u i r e m e n t of

a l l e g i a n c e t o t h e

s o v e r e i g n . To

h e e x t e n t jus

o l i i s adopted

i n t o

t h e

F o u r t e e n t h

Amendment, h e

concept

of l l e g i a n c e

i s

m a n i f e s t e d

by t h e

C i t i z e n s h i p C l a u s e ' s

mandate t h a t

b i r t h r i g h t c i t i z e n s

n o t

merely be born

w i t h i n t h e


b o u n d a r i e s

o f t h e

United S t a t e s b u t a l s o

s u b j e c t t o

t h e


t h e r e o f ,

U.S. o N S ` r .

amend.

XIV,

§

,

c l .

1 ;

s e e

Wong Kim

Ark, 169

U.S.

t 655 The

r i n c i p l e embraced

l l

p e r s o n s

born

w i t h i n t h e k i n g ' s

a l l e g i a n c e , and

s u b j e c t t o

h i s

p r o t e c t i o n . . . .

C h i l d r e n ,

born

n

England, f ] l i e n s ,

were []

n a t u r a l- b o r n

s u b j e c t s . But

h e

c h i l d r e n , born

i t h i n t h e r e a l m ,

of

o r e i g n

ambassadors,

r

t h e

c h i l d r e n

o f

l i e n enemies,

born

d u r i n g and w i t h i n

t h e i r h o s t i l e

o c c u p a t i o n

o f a r t

of

h e

k i n g ' s

dominions,

were

not n a t u r a l

- b o r n s u b j e c t s ,

becaus e not born

w i t h i n

t h e

a l l e g i a n c e ,

t h e o b e d i e n c e ,

or

t h e

power,

o r , a s

would

be s a i d a t

t h i s day,

w i t h i n

t h e

j u r i s d i c t i o n , o f h e

k i n g . ) .

A p p e l l a n t s

would f i n d

any

a l l e g i a n c e

r e q u i r e m e n t

of no

m o m e n t e c a u s e , a s

no n-

c i t i z e n n a t i o n a l s ,

American

Samoans

a l r e a d y

owe[]

ermanent l l e g i a n c e t o t h e

United S t a t e s .

8

U.S.C. §

1 0 1 ( a ) ( 2 2 ) ;

see

l s o

S a i l o r ' s

Snug

Harbor, 8 U.S.

a t

155

[ A ] l l e g i a n c e i s

n o t h i n g m o r e

than

h e

t i e o r

duty

o f

obedience o f a

s u b j e c t

t o

t h e

s o v e r e i g n

under w h o s e

p r o t e c t i o n h e i s ;

and

a l l e g i a n c e by b i r t h ,

i s

t h a t which a r i s e s

fro m

b e i n g

born

w i t h i n t h e dominions

and

under

t h e

p r o t e c t i o n

o f

a r t i c u l a r s o v e r e i g n . ) .

Yet,

i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t

of h e


C l a u s e ,

[ t ] h e

e v i d e n t

meaning o f h e [ ] . .

words

s u b j e c t

t o

t h e


t h e r e o f ' ]

i s

not merely

s u b j e c t i n

s o m e

r e s p e c t o r

d e g r e e

t o t h e

j u r i s d i c t i o n o f h e


b u t

c o m p l e t e l y

s u b j e c t

t o

t h e i r

p o l i t i c a l



UCCACase

~ . ~

-5272

t ~ m e r ~ t

~

5 4Q

t

d:

6 1 t } 5 / 2 { 7 ~

1 1

j u r i s d i c t i o n ,

and

owing

them

d i r e c t

and

immediate

a l l e g i a n c e .

Elk

v .

W i l k i n s ,

112 U.S.

94,

102

(1884)

(emphasis

a d d e d ) .

I t

was

on

h i s

b a s i s

t h a t

t h e

Supreme

Court

d e c l i n e d t o

extend

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b i r t h r i g h t

c i t i z e n s h i p t o

N a t i v e

American

t r i b e s .

See

i d .

a t 9 9

The

I n d i a n t r i b e s ,

b e i n g

w i t h i n

t h e


l i m i t s

of

h e

United

S t a t e s ,

were

n o t ,

s t r i c t l y

s p e a k i n g ,

f o r e i g n

s t a t e s ;

b u t

t h e y

were

a l i e n

n a t i o n s ,

d i s t i n c t

p o l i t i c a l

communities ....) .

As

ven

t h e

d i s s e n t t o

Elk

e c o g n i z e d , i t

would

be

o b v i o u s l y

i n c o n s i s t e n t

w i t h

t h e semi-

independent

c h a r a c t e r of

uch

a r i b e ,

and

w i t h

t h e

obedience they

a r e

e x p e c t e d

t o

r e n d e r

t o

t h e i r

t r i b a l

head,

t h a t

t h e y

should

be

v e s t e d w i t h

t h e

complete

r i g h t s

—or n

t h e o t h e r ,

s u b j e c t e d

t o t h e

f u l l

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

—of

merican

c i t i z e n s .

I t would

not

f o r a

moment be

contended

t h a t such

was h e

e f f e c t

of h i s

amendment.

I d .

a t

119

-20

Harlan, .

d i s s e n t i n g ) .

Even

assuming a

background

c o n t e x t

grounded

i n

p r i n c i p l e s

of us

o l i , we

r e

s k e p t i c a l

t h e

f r a m e r s

p l a i n l y

i n t e n d e d

t o e x t e n d

b i r t h r i g h t


d i s t i n c t ,

s i g n i f i c a n t l y

s e l f -

governing

p o l i t i c a l

t e r r i t o r i e s

w i t h i n t h e

United

S t a t e s ' s

s p h e r e of

o v e r e i g n t y

—even

here, s i s

t h e

c a s e

w i t h

American

Samoa,

u l t i m a t e

governance

remains


v e s t e d w i t h

t h e

United

S t a t e s Government.

See

Downes, 182

U.S.

a t

305

(White,

.

c o n c u r r i n g )

( d o u b t i n g


n a t u r a l l y and

i n e v i t a b l y

e x t e n d s t o

an

a c q u i r e d

t e r r i t o r y

r e g a r d l e s s

of

o n t e x t ) .

I I I

A n a l y s i s

of t h e


C l a u s e ' s

a p p l i c a t i o n

t o

American

S a m o a would

be

i n c o m p l e t e

a b s e n t

i n v o c a t i o n

of

t h e

sometimes

c o n t e n t i o u s

I n s u l a r

C a s e s ,

where

t h e

Supreme

Court

addressed

whether t h e

C o n s t i t u t i o n , by

t s

own

o r c e ,

a p p l i e s

i n

an y

t e r r i t o r y

t h a t

i s not

a

S t a t e .

Boumediene

v .

Bush,

553 U.S.

723

(2008).

See a l s o

King

v .

Morton,

520

F.2d 1140,

1153

(D.C.

i r .

1975)

The

I n s u l a r Cases,

n t h e

Pate

1

c ~ ~



L1~CA base

# 1 3

-527

D c ~ c ~ . a m e n ~

X1 40

g i l

d: 6 1 { x

/201 ~ a .

~

2

0 ~3

12

manner i n

which t h e

r e s u l t s

were r e a c h e d ,

t h e

i n c o n g r u i t y

of

t h e r e s u l t s ,

and t h e

v a r i e t y of

n c o n s i s t e n t

views

x p r e s s e d

by

t h e

d i f f e r e n t

members

of

t h e

c o u r t , a r e ,

I b e l i e v e ,

w i t h o u t

p a r a l l e l

i n

our u d i c i a l h i s t o r y . ) .

The

d o c t r i n e

of


i n c o r p o r a t i o n ' announced i n

t h e

I n s u l a r

Cases d i s t i n g u i s h e s

between i n c o r p o r a t e d

t e r r i t o r i e s ,

which a r e

i n t e n d e d f o r s t a t e h o o d

from t h e time of

a c q u i s i t i o n and

i n

which

t h e

e n t i r e C o n s t i t u t i o n a p p l i e s ex

proprio

v i g o r e , and

u n i n c o r p o r a t e d


[such a s

American

Samoa],

which

a r e

not

i n t e n d e d

f o r

s t a t e h o o d

and

i n

which

only

[ c e r t a i n ]

fundamental


r i g h t s

a p p l y by

t h e i r

own o r c e . Commonwealth

of

N.

Mariana

I s l a n d s v .

A t a l i g , 723 F.2d

682,

88

9 t h

C i r .

1 9 8 4 ) .

A p p e l l a n t s

and

Amici

contend t h e

I n s u l a r Cases

have no

a p p l i c a t i o n

because

t h e C i t i z e n s h i p

Clause

t e x t u a l l y d e f i n e s

i t s

own c o p e . See

Examining

Bd.

of n g i n e e r s ,

A r c h i t e c t s

Surveyors .

Flores d e O t e r o ,

426 U.S. 572, 590

. 2 1 (1976)

[T]he Court

i n

Dorr

v . U n i t e d

S t a t e s ,

195

U.S.

138,

143

(1904)

...

[ h e l d ]

t h a t t h e

C o n s t i t u t i o n ,

e x c e p t

i n s o f a r

as

r e q u i r e d

by

t s

own

t e r m s , d i d

n o t e x t e n d

t o

t h e

P h i l i p p i n e s .

)

(emphasis

a d d e d ) . We

onclude t h e

scope

of h e


C l a u s e , a s a p p l i e d t o

t e r r i t o r i e s , m a y n o t be

e a d i l y

d i s c e r n e d

from

t h e

p l a i n t e x t

o r

o t h e r i n d i c i a of t h e f r a m e r s '

i n t e n t ,

a b s e n t r e s o r t

t o t h e

I n s u l a r

Cases'

n a l y t i c a l framework. See

B o u n Z e d i e n e , 553

U.S. a t 726

(While t h e


has

independent

f o r c e

i n

t h e

t e r r i t o r i e s t h a t [ i s ] n o t

c o n t i n g e n t

u pon c t s

of

e g i s l a t i v e

g r a c e [ , ] ...

because

of h e d i f f i c u l t i e s

and

d i s r u p t i o n s i n h e r e n t i n

t r a n s f o r m i n g


t e r r i t o r i e s ]

i n t o

an Anglo-

American system, h e

Court

adopted

t h e

d o c t r i n e

of


i n c o r p o r a t i o n , under which

t h e

C o n s t i t u t i o n a p p l i e s

. o n l y

i n

p a r t

i n u n i n c o r p o r a t e d


) .



USCACase

t . 3

-5272

3 c ~ c ~ . ~ r r ~ n t

~~a94

ild.

6 1 C ~ ~ / 2 0 1

13

Amici C u r i a e

s u g g e s t

t e r r i t o r i a l i n c o r p o r a t i o n d o c t r i n e

s h o u l d n o t

be

expanded t o

t h e

C i t i z e n s h i p Clause because

t h e

d o c t r i n e

r e s t s

on

a n a c h r o n i s t i c views of a c e and

i m p e r i a l i s m .

But

h e Court has

c o n t i n u e d t o

invoke

t h e

I n s u l a r framework

w h e n d e a l i n g

w i t h q u e s t i o n s

of

e r r i t o r i a l and

e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l

a p p l i c a t i o n .

See i d . a t 756

-64. Although s o m e

a s p e c t s

of h e

I n s u l a r Cases' a n a l y s i s

may now

be

deemed p o l i t i c a l l y

i n c o r r e c t ,

t h e

framework remains

b o t h

a p p l i c a b l e and

of

p r a g m a t i c

use i n

a s s e s s i n g

t h e

a p p l i c a b i l i t y

of

r i g h t s

t o


t e r r i t o r i e s . See

i d

a t 758-59

[T]he Court

d e v i s e d

i n t h e

I n s u l a r Cases

a

d o c t r i n e t h a t

allowed

i t

t o

u se

i t s

power s p a r i n g l y

and where

i t

would

be most

needed i n

r e c o g n i t i o n of h e

i n h e r e n t p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s of

n f o r c i n g

a l l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

p r o v i s i o n s

always

and

everywhere. ) . See

a l s o

Balzac

v Porto Rico,

258

U.S.

298,

312

(1922)

T h e


..

contains g r a n t s of

power, and l i m i t a t i o n s

which i n t h e

n a t u r e

of

h i n g s

a r e

n o t always and

everywhere

a p p l i c a b l e and

t h e

r e a l i s s u e

i n

t h e

I n s u l a r Case s

[ i s ] ..

which [] of t h e

C o n s t i t u t i o n ' s ] p r o v i s i o n s

[ a ] r e a p p l i c a b l e

by

w a y

of

l i m i t a t i o n

upon t h e

e x e r c i s e

of e x e c u t i v e

and


power

i n

d e a l i n g w i t h

n e w c o n d i t i o n s and

r e q u i r e m e n t s

a r i s i n g

i n

t h e


c o n t e x t ) .

As h e

S u p reme

Court

i n Boumediene

emphasized,

t h e

common t h r e a d

u n i t i n g

t h e

I n s u l a r Cases

[ i s

t h a t ]

q u e s t i o n s

of e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l i t y

t u r n

on

o b j e c t i v e f a c t o r s

and

p r a c t i c a l

c o n c e r n s , n o t

formalism. 553 U.S.

a t 764. While

fundamental

l i m i t a t i o n s i n

f a v o r of

e r s o n a l r i g h t s

remain

g u a r a n t e e d t o

p e r s o n s

born i n t h e


t e r r i t o r i e s ,

i d

a t

758

q u o t i n g

Late Corp.

of

h e

C h u r c h of esus

C h r i s t of

L a t t e r

-Day

a i n t s

v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ,

136

U.S.

,

44

1 8 9 0 ) ) ,

t h e

I n s u l a r framework r e c o g n i z e s

t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t

f r e q u e n t l y

i n u r e

w h e n

d e t e r m i n [ i n g ]

[whether

a]

a r t i c u l a r

p r o v i s i o n

of

t h e


i s

a p p l i c a b l e ,

a b s e n t i n q u i r y i n t o

t h e

i m p r a c t i c a l

o r

anomalous.

See

z d . ; s e e

a l s o

Downes,

182 U.S.

face

3 o a f

3



L ~ ~ C ~ I ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ . 3

272

( ~ c ~ ~ ~ . ~ m e n t

~.~Q

i l e ~ ~ :

061(~l~~1 ~~.

~ ~3

14

a t 292

(White, . ,

concurring) [T]he

d e t e r m i n a t i o n

o f

what

p a r t i c u l a r p r o v i s i o n

o f

t h e


i s


g e n e r a l l y

speaking,

i n a l l c a s e s ,

i n v o l v e s an

i n q u i r y

i n t o

t h e

s i t u a t i o n

o f t h e t e r r i t o r y

and

i t s

r e l a t i o n s

t o t h e

United

S t a t e s .

) .

A

American c i t i z e n s h i p i s

o n e o f h e

most v a l u a b l e r i g h t s

i n t h e

world t o d a y .

Kennedy

v .

Me nd oza

-

Martinez,

372 U.S.

144,

160

1963).

T h e

freedoms and

o p p o r t u n i t i e s

s e c u r e d

by

United S t a t e s

c i t i z e n s h i p long

have

been t r e a s u r e d by

persons

f o r t u n a t e

e n o u g h

o

be born

with them,

and

a r e

yearned

f o r by

c o u n t l e s s

l e s s

f o r t u n a t e .

Fed orenk o

v .

United S t a t e s , 449

U.S.

490,

522

(1981).

Accordingly,

even

i f

t h e I n s u l a r

framework

i s


A p p e l l a n t s c i t e t o

a bevy o f

a s e s

t o

argue

c i t i z e n s h i p i s

a

fundamental r i g h t . See, e . g . ,

Afroyim

v .

Rusk, 387 U . S.

253

(1967);

Schneider

v .

Rusk,

377

U.S. 163

(1964);

Ken nedy

.

Me nd oza-

Martinez,

372 U.S.

144

(1963);

T rop

.

D u l l e s ,

356

U.S.

103 1958)

p l u r a l i t y o p . ) .

But h o s e

c a s e s

do

not

a r i s e

i n t h e


c o n t e x t .

S u c h d e c i s i o n s

do

not

e f l e c t

t h e

C o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r e d

jud gment

s

t o

t h e

e x i s t e n c e

of a

fundamental

r i g h t t o c i t i z e n s h i p

f o r

persons

born

i n

t h e

United

S t a t e s '


t e r r i t o r i e s . C f .

Wong Kim Ark,

169

U.S.

t

679.'

T h i s

C o u r t , l i k e

t h e

l o w e r

c o u r t ,

i s

[ a l s o ] m i n d f u l

of h e y e a r s of

p a s t p r a c t i c e

i n

which



has

been

t r e a t e d

a s

a

s t a t u t o r y , and

not

a


r i g h t .

Tuaua,

51 F.

S u p p .

2d

a t

98. [N]o

o n e

a c q u i r e s

a

v e s t e d or

p r o t e c t e d

r i g h t

i n v i o l a t i o n

o f

the C o n s t i t u t i o n

by

long use ....

Yet

an

unbroken

p r a c t i c e

..

openly [conducted]

by

a f f i r m a t i v e s t a t e

a c t i o n i s not

something o be

i g h t l y

c a s t

a s i d e .

Walz . Tax

C o n ~ ~ n ' n o f i t y

o f

New York,

397 U . S .

664, 78 1970).



~~

se r .3

-5272

D c ~ c

~ ~ r ~ e n t

~ 1 ~~ 40

i l ~ c ~ :

C } 6 1 ~ 5 / 2 ~ 1 F ~ a c ~ e

5

i f

2~

15

Fundamental

has

a i s t i n c t and

narrow

meaning n t h e

c o n t e x t o f

e r r i t o r i a l

r i g h t s .

I t

i s

n o t s u f f i c i e n t

t h a t

a

i g h t be

c o n s i d e r e d

fundamentally i m p o r t a n t i n

a

c o l l o q u i a l

s e n s e

o r

even h a t

a i g h t be

n e c e s s a r y

t o

[ t h e ]

[]America n regime

of

o r d e r e d

l i b e r t y .

Wabol

.

V i l l a c r u s i s ,

958 F.2d 1450,

1460

( 9 t h

C i r . 1990)

q u o t i n g

Duncan v . L o u i s i a n a ,

391

U.S.

145,

149

n.14

( 1 9 6 8 ) ) .

Under t h e

I n s u l a r framework t h e

d e s i g n a t i o n

of

fundamental e x t e n d s

only

t o t h e

narrow

c a t e g o r y o f i g h t s

and

p r i n c i p l e s which a r e

t h e b a s i s o f l l

f r e e

government.

Dorn

v .

U n i t e d

S t a t e s ,

195 U.S.

138,

147

(1904)

(emphasis

a d d e d ) ; Downes,

182

U.S. a t

283

Whatever may e

i n a l l y

d e c i d e d

by

h e American

p e o p l e

a s

t o t h e s t a t u s

o f

h e s e i s l a n d s

and t h e i r i n h a b i t a n t s

...they r e

e n t i t l e d

under t h e

p r i n c i p l e s

of

t h e

C o n s t i t u t i o n t o be

p r o t e c t e d i n

l i f e

l i b e r t y ,

and p r o p e r t y

...even [ i f t h e y a r e ]

not

p o s s e s s e d o f

h e p o l i t i c a l

r i g h t s

of

i t i z e n s o f h e United

S t a t e s . ) .

I n

t h i s

manner

t h e

I n s u l a r Cases d i s t i n g u i s h a s

u n i v e r s a l l y

fundamental

h o s e r i g h t s

so

b a s i c a s t o be

n t e g r a l

t o

f r e e and

f a i r s o c i e t y . I n

c o n t r a s t ,

we

c o n s i d e r

non-

fundamental

t h o s e

a r t i f i c i a l

p r o c e d u r a l ,

o r

r e m e d i a l

r i g h t s

t h a t u s t l y

r e v e r e d though

t h e y

m a y

be—are n o n e t h e l e s s

i d i o s y n c r a t i c

t o

t h e

American

o c i a l

compact r

t o

t h e

Anglo-

American t r a d i t i o n

o f u r i s p r u d e n c e .

E . g . ,

B a l z a c , 258 U.S.

298

( c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o

a j u r y t r i a l does not

e x t e n d

t o

u n i n c o r p o r a t e d t e r r i t o r i e s

a s

a

fundamental r i g h t ) ; see a l s o

Downes,

182

U.S.

t 282

We u g g e s t , w i t h o u t

i n t e n d i n g t o

d e c i d e ,

t h a t t h e r e may e

a i s t i n c t i o n between

c e r t a i n n a t u r a l

r i g h t s

e n f o r c e d

i n

t h e


by

p r o h i b i t i o n s

a g a i n s t

i n t e r f e r e n c e

w i t h them, and

what m a y

be termed

a r t i f i c i a l

o r

r e m e d i a l

r i g h t s

which

a r e p e c u l i a r t o

our

own

system

of

j u r i s p r u d e n c e .

) .



US

A~ ~ $

s f 1 ~

272

D c r c ~ . ~ m e ~ ~ ~ 1 a ~ 4 ( ~

t

c ~ :

06f0

I201

~a

~ C ~

r

23

16

We

r e

unconvinced

a i g h t t o be

d e s i g n a t e d

a

c i t i z e n a t

b i r t h under

t h e

jus

s o l i

t r a d i t i o n ,

r a t h e r

t h a n

a n o n -c i t i z e n

n a t i o n a l ,

i s

a

s i n e

qua n o n

f o r

` f r e e

gover nment

'

o r

o t h e r w i s e

fundamental

under

t h e

I n s u l a r Cases'

c o n s t r i c t e d

u n d e r s t a n d i n g

o f

t h e

term.

Corp.

o f

r e s i d i n g

Bishop o f

C h u r c h

o f

esus

C h r i s t o f

a t t e r-Day

S a i n t s

v . Hodel, 830

F.2d 374,

386

n.72

(D. C . C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) .

R e g a r d l e s s

o f i t s

i n d e p e n d e n t l y

c o n t r o l l i n g

f o r c e ,

we

t h e r e f o r e adopt

t h e

c o n c l u s i o n o f

u s t i c e

Brown's

dictum

i n

h i s

judgment

o r t h e

Court i n

Downes. See

182 U.S.

t 282-83.

C i t i z e n s h i p by

b i r t h

w i t h i n t h e s o v e r e i g n ' s

domain

[may

be]

a

o r n e r s t o n e

o f

[ t h e Anglo-

American]

common

law

t r a d i t i o n ,

B r i e f f o r

P e t i t i o n e r-

A p p e l l a n t a t 48,

Tuaua v . United

S t a t e s , N o .

1 3 -

5272

(D.C .

C i r .

A p r i l

25,

2014), but n u me ro us

f r e e an d

d e m o c r a t i c s o c i e t i e s

p r i n c i p a l l y f o l l o w

jus

sanguinis—

r i g h t

o f t h e blood

—where

i r t h r i g h t


i s

based

u p o n

n a t i o n a l i t y

of a

c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s .

See

M i l l e r v . A l b r i g h t , 523

U.S.

420, 4 7 7

(1998)

c i t i n g

v a r i o u s

a u t h o r i t y n o t i n g

t h e

` w i d e s p r e a d

e x t e n t

o f

h e

r u l e o f

u s

s a n g u i n i s .

' ) ;

G r a z i e l l a

B e r t o c c h i

hiara S t r o z z i ,

The

E v o l u t i o n

o f

i t i z e n s h i p :

E c o n o m i c

and

I n s t i t u t i o n a l D e t e r m i n a n t s ,

53

J . L .

CON.

95,

99

-100

(2010)

( j u s

s a n g u i n i s

has

t r a d i t i o n a l l y

predominated i n

c i v i l

law c o u n t r i e s ,

whereas

jus

s o l i has

h i s t o r i c a l l y

been

h e

n o r m

n

common aw

o u n t r i e s ) .

I n s t a t e s

f o l l o w i n g a us

a n g u i n i s

t r a d i t i o n b i r t h

i n t h e

s o v e r e i g n ' s

domain

hether

n

an

o u t l y i n g t e r r i t o r y ,

c o l o n y ,

o r

t h e

c o u n t r y p r o p e r

—is

imply

i r r e l e v a n t

t o

t h e

q u e s t i o n

o f


Nor

s

t h e

a s s e r t e d r i g h t

so n a t u r a l and

i n t r i n s i c

t o

t h e

h u m a n c o n d i t i o n

a s

c o u l d

n o t

w a r r a n t

t r a n s g r e s s i o n i n

c i v i l

s o c i e t y .

See

g e n e r a l l y Dorr, 195 U.S.

a t 1 4 7 .

g

In t h e


n a t i o n a l i t y

may be

p r e d i c a t e d

e i t h e r o n jus

s o l i

r o n jus

s a n g u i n i s

. . . .

Ac hes o n

v . Maenza,

202 F . 2 d

453, 59

D . C .

i r .

1953) t h e

l t t e r i s

c o n f e r r e d s t a t u t o r i l y ) .



l~~C,A

~~se X13

-

272

Dac~~mer~t ~

~0

a i l

c ~

~6i

5 I 2 C ~ 1

~ a c ~

7 ~ ~

17

[ C ] i t i z e n s h i p

has

no

meaning

i n

t h e absence

of d i f f e r e n c e .

P e t e r J . S p i r o ,

The I m p o s s i b i l i t y

of

i t i z e n s h i p , 101 MICR.

L.

REV.

1492, 1509

(2003).

T h e

m e a n s

b y which f r e e

and

f a i r

s o c i e t i e s

may

l e c t

t o

a s c r i b e

t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of

i t i z e n

must

accommodate

v a r i a t i o n

where c o n s i s t e n t

with

r e s p e c t f o r

o t h e r ,

i n h e r e n t and

i n a l i e n a b l e ,

r i g h t s

of

p e r s o n s . To

i n d a

n a t u r a l

r i g h t

t o jus

s o l i

b i r t h r i g h t

c i t i z e n s h i p would g i v e

umbrag e t o

t h e l i b e r t y

of

r e e people t o

govern

t h e

terms

of

a s s o c i a t i o n

w i t h i n t h e

s o c i a l

com p a c t

u n d e r l y i n g

formation

of

a

s o v e r e i g n

s t a t e . C f .

A r i s t o t l e , P o l i t i c s

bk. 3,

r e p r i n t e d

i n

part

in

READINGS

IN

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 55

87

F r a n c i s

W.

oke r

e d . ,

1938)

T h e

b a s i s

of

a

democratic

s t a t e i s

l i b e r t y ;

which, according

t o

t h e

common opinion

of m e n , can

only

be

enjoyed

i n such

a

t a t e [ . ] ) . 9

Th e

absence of

a

fundamental


r i g h t

t o

jus s o l i

b i r t h r i g h t

c i t i z e n s h i p does not

end our

n q u i r y .

T h e

d e c i s i o n

i n

t h e

p r e s e n t

case does

not

depend on

key

words

such as

`fundamental' or

` u n i n c o r p o r a t e d

t e r r i t o r y [ , ] '

...but

can

be

reached

only

b y

applying

t h e

p r i n c i p l e s

of

t h e

[ I n s u l a r ]

[ C ] a s e s , as

c o n t r o l l e d

b y

t h e i r

r e s p e c t i v e c o n t e x t s , t o

t h e

s i t u a t i o n

as

i t e x i s t s

i n

American

Sa moa today.

King, 520

F.2d a t

1147.

C f .

Boumediene,

553 U.S.

t 758

I t may

e l l

be

t h a t

over

time

t h e

t i e s

between t h e

United

S t a t e s

and

any of

i t s


T e r r i t o r i e s

s t r e n g t h e n i n

ways

t h a t a r e

of

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . ) .

[T]he

q u e s t i o n

i s

which

g u a r a n t e e s

of

t h e


should apply i n

view

of t h e

p a r t i c u l a r

c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,

t h e

p r a c t i c a l

n e c e s s i t i e s ,

and

t h e

9

T h e case

b e f o r e us p e r t a i n s

only t o

t h e

p e r m i s s i b i l i t y

of

d e s i g n a t i n g

American

Samoans

as

n a t i o n a l s , r a t h e r

t h a n

c i t i z e n s .

We eed

not

decide

whether


i m p r o p r i e t y

would

a r i s e

i f persons

born i n an


t e r r i t o r y

were

a l s o

denied

n a t i o n a l

s t a t u s .



~~CA

C s ; ~ .

-5272

D~c~~m~nt

~

1~~

a4 il:

~ C ~ 1 / 2 ~ ~ ~ _

F ~ ~ c ~

8

~

~

18

p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s

which

Congress

had b e f o r e i t . R e i d ,

354

U.S

a t

75.

I n sum,

w e must ask

whether t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

a r e

such t h a t

r e c o g n i t i o n

of t h e

r i g h t t o

b i r t h r i g h t


would prove

i m p r a c t i c a b l e and

anomalous,

a s

a p p l i e d t o

contemporary

American Samoa.

I d .

a t 74.

D e s p i t e

American

Samoa's l e n g t h y

r e l a t i o n s h i p

w i t h t h e

United S t a t e s , t h e

American Samoa n

p e o p l e

have

n o t formed

a

c o l l e c t i v e

consensus i n

f a v o r of

United S t a t e s


I n

p a r t t h i s

r e l u c t a n c e

stems

from

unique

k i n s h i p

p r a c t i c e s

and

s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s

i n h e r e n t

t o

t h e

t r a d i t i o n a l

Samoa n

w a y

of

l i f e ,

i n c l u d i n g

t h o s e r e l a t e d t o t h e

Samoa n system o f

communal

l a n d

ownership.

T r a d i t i o n a l l y

aiga

(extended

f a m i l i e s )

communally

own i r t u a l l y

a l l Samoa n

l a n d ,

[and]

t h e m a t a i s [ c h i e f s ]

have

u t h o r i t y over which family

members

w o r k

what

a m i l y l a n d

and where h e

n u c l e a r

f a m i l i e s

w i t h i n

t h e

extended

f a m i l y

w i l l l i v e .

King,

520

F.2d

a t

1159.

Extended f a m i l i e s

under t h e

a u t h o r i t y o f matais remain

a

f u n d a m e n t a l l y

i m p o r t a n t s o c i a l

u n i t

i n

modern

Samoa n

s o c i e t y .

R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

o f t h e

American

Samoa n

p e o p l e

have

long

e x p r e s s e d

concern

t h a t

t h e e x t e n s i o n

of

U n i t e d

S t a t e s


t h e t e r r i t o r y

c o u l d

p o t e n t i a l l y

undermine

t h e s e

a s p e c t s

o f h e Samoa n

w a y of

i f e . F or example

Congressman

Faleomavaega

and

t h e

American Samoan

Government

p o s i t

t h e

e x t e n s i o n

of


c o u l d r e s u l t

i n

g r e a t e r

s c r u t i n y

under

t h e

Equal

P r o t e c t i o n C l a u s e

of t h e

F o u r t e e n t h

Amendment,

i m p e r i l i n g

American

Samoa's

t r a d i t i o n a l ,

r a c i a l l y- b a s e d l a n d

a l i e n a t i o n

r u l e s .

A p p e l l a n t s

c o n t e s t

t h e

p r o b a b l e

danger

c i t i z e n s h i p p o s e s t o

American

Samoa's

customs

and

c u l t u r a l

mores.



U~~A

~s

r ~ . ; 3

-272 D~c~~men~

~1~ a4Q

~ i f c ~ :

061i~0~

19

The

r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s d i s p u t e would l i k e l y

r e q u i r e

d e l v i n g

i n t o

t h e p a r t i c u l a r s

of American

Samoa's

p r e s e n t

l e g a l and c u l t u r a l s t r u c t u r e s

t o

an

e x t e n t i l l -

s u i t e d

t o

t h e

l i m i t e d

f a c t u a l r e c o r d b e f o r e u s . See King,

520

F.2d

a t 1147

The

importance

of h e

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t

a t s t a k e

makes t

e s s e n t i a l t h a t

a

d e c i s i o n

i n

t h i s c a s e r e s t

on

a

s o l i d

u n d e r s t a n d i n g of h e p r e s e n t l e g a l and

c u l t u r a l development

of American Samoa.

That

u n d e r s t a n d i n g

cannot

be based on

u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d

o p i n i o n ;

i t

must

be

b a s e d

on f a c t s . ) .

We

need

not r e s t on such i s s u e s

o r

o t h e r w i s e s p e c u l a t e

on t h e

r e l a t i v e

m e r i t s

of

h e

American

Samoan

Government's Equal

P r o t e c t i o n

c o n c e r n s . The

i m p o s i t i o n

of


on t h e

American Samoan

t e r r i t o r y

i s

i m p r a c t i c a l and

anomalous

a t

a

more

fundamental

e v e l .

We

o l d i t anomalous t o impose

c i t i z e n s h i p over

t h e

o b j e c t i o n s of t h e

American Samoan p e o p l e t h e m s e l v e s , a s

e x p r e s s e d

through t h e i r d e m o c r a t i c a l l y e l e c t e d

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . 1 0 See

B r i e f f o r

I n t e r v e n o r s ,

o r i n t h e

A l t e r n a t i v e ,

Amici

Curiae

t h e

American

S amoa

Government

and

Congressman Eni

F.H. Faleomavaega

a t

23-35,

Tuaua v .

U n i t e d

S t a t e s ,

No.

13-5272

(D.C.

C i r .

A u g .

25,

2014)

(opposing c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b i r t h r i g h t

c i t i z e n s h i p ) .

A e p u b l i c

of

p e o p l e i s

not

every

group of men, s s o c i a t e d i n any

manner,

[ i t ]

i s

t h e coming

t o g e t h e r of

.

.men who a r e

u n i t e d

b y

common

greement

....

M RCUS

ULLIUS CICERO,

DE

E

PuBLica

b k .

c h .

25,26-35 George H . a b i n e &Stanley

B.

1 0

We ddress only

whether

the

C i t i z e n s h i p Clause

mandates

t h e

i m p o s i t i o n of b i r t h r i g h t c i t i z e n s h i p

where doing

so o v e r r i d e s

t h e

wishes

of

an


t e r r i t o r y ' s p e o p l e . We o not doubt

Congress's g e n e r a l

a u t h o r i t y

t o , i n i t s

d i s c r e t io n , n a t u r a l i z e persons

l i v i n g

i n

t h e

United

S t a t e s ' s



nor

do

we

q u e s t i o n t h e expansive scope

of

b i r t h r i g h t


i n the

i n c o r p o r a t e d t e r r i t o r i e s

or opine on t h e

g e n e r a l

scope of ongress's

powers under

h e

T e r r i t o r i a l

Clause, U .S . oNST. r t .

IV,

§ ,

l .

2.



l~C'~

~~

3 1 3

- 5 2 7 . 2

D c ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~

~ f 1 ~a~10

ilc:

~~~1(J11.

~ ~ 0

f

20

Smith

t r a n s . ,

P r e n t i c e

H a l l 1 9 2 9 ) .

I n

t h i s manner, we

d i s t i n g u i s h a

r e p u b l i c a n


from

t h e

a u t o c r a t i c

s u b j u g a t i o n of

r e e p e o p l e . And

from

t h i s ,

i t

i s

c o n s e q u e n t l y

u n d e r s t o o d

t h a t

d e m o c r a t i c

governments ... e r i v [ e ] t h e i r []

powers

from

t h e

c o n s e n t of t h e governed, Kennett

v .

Chambers, 55 U.S.

14

How.)

8, 41

(1852); un der any u s t

system

of

governance

t h e

f o u n t of t a t e power r e s t s on

t h e

p a r t i c i p a t i o n

of

i t i z e n s

i n

c i v i l s o c i e t y

—that

s ,

t h r o u g h t h e

f r e e

and

u l l a s s o c i a t i o n of n d i v i d u a l s

w i t h , and a s a

p a r t

o f ,

s o c i e t y

and

h e

s t a t e .

C i t i z e n s h i p i s t h e

e f f e c t

of

a] o m p a c t [ ; ] ... i t ]

i s

a

p o l i t i c a l

t i e .

T a l b o t

v . Jansen,

3

.S.

(3

D a l l . )

133, 141

(1795)

d i s t i n g u i s h i n g

c i t i z e n s h i p from

t h e

f e u d a l

d o c t r i n e of

p e r p e t u a l

a l l e g i a n c e ) . [E]very ] u e s t i o n

of

i t i z e n s h i p [ ]..

[ t h u s ]

depends on t h e

terms

and

s p i r i t of [ t h e ]

s o c i a l

compact. I d . a t

142. The b e n e f i t s

of American


a r e n o t .

u n d e r s t o o d i n

i s o l a t i o n ;

r e c i p r o c a l

t o

t h e

r i g h t s

of

c i t i z e n s h i p a r e ,

and

should

b e , t h e o b l i g a t i o n s c a r r i e d by

l l

c i t i z e n s

of

h e

United S t a t e s . See Trop

.

D u l l e s ,

356 U.S.

6,

92

1958)

The d u t i e s

of

i t i z e n s h i p

a r e

numerous, and

t h e

d i s c h a r g e

of

m a n y

of

h e s e

o b l i g a t i o n s

i s

e s s e n t i a l

t o

t h e

s e c u r i t y and w e l l

- b e i n g

of

h e

N a t i o n . ) ;

TxE

E D E R a , L ~ s T

No .

Cf.

THE EDERALISTNO.

2 Alexander

Hamilton)

lt

h a s

not

a

l i t t l e

c o n t r i b u t e d

t o t h e i n f i r m i t i e s

of h e e x i s t i n g f e d e r a l s y s t e m ,

t h a t i t n e v e r

had a


by

t h e P e o p l e .

.Owing t s


t o

t h e law

of t a t e , t

has

been

contended

h a t t h e

s a m e

a u t h o r i t y might

r e p e a l t h e

law

by

which i t

w as

r a t i f i e d . . . . Th e

p o s s i b i l i t y of u e s t i o n of

h i s

n a t u r e

p r o v e s

t h e n e c e s s i t y of

a y i n g

t h e f o u n d a t i o n s

of ur

a t i o n a l

government deeper

h a n i n t h e

mere

s a n c t i o n of d e l e g a t e d

a u t h o r i t y . The f a b r i c of

American

empire

ought

o

r e s t

on

t h e

s o l i d b a s i s

of

h e

c o n s e n t

of

h e

P e o p l e .

Th e

s t r e a m s of n a t i o n a l

power ought t o flow

immediately from

t h a t

p u r e ,

o r i g i n a l f o u n t a i n of a l l

l e g i t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y . ) emphasis

o m i t t e d ) .



USCA

Case X13-

272 D

~ . ~ ~ ~ r ~ e r ~ t , r 1

~ i Q

a i l

c ~ :

~ C ~ 1 0 5 1 2 0 1 . F ~ a c ~ e 2

i f

21

14 James

Madison)

[T]he

k i n d r e d

b l o o d which flows

n

t h e

v e i n s

of American c i t i z e n s , t h e

mingled

blood

which t h e y

have shed i n

d e f e n s e of

t h e i r s a c r e d r i g h t s , c o n s e c r a t e t h e i r

Union. ) .

C i t i z e n s h i p i s n o t

t h e sum

of

t s b e n e f i t s .

I t

i s

no

l e s s

t h a n t h e a d o p t i o n o r

a s c r i p t i o n

of

an d e n t i t y , t h a t

of

c i t i z e n

t o a

p a r t i c u l a r

s o v e r e i g n s t a t e ,

and

a


of t h o s e

mores

n e c e s s a r y and

i n t r i n s i c

t o


a s

a f u l l

f u n c t i o n i n g

component

of t h a t

s o v e r e i g n t y . See

Minor

v .

H a p p e r s e t t ,

88

U.S.

(21

W a l l . ) 162,

16 5

-6 6

(1874)

There

cannot

be a n a t i o n

w i t h o u t

a

p e o p l e . T h e

v e r y i d e a of a

p o l i t i c a l community, such a s

a n a t i o n i s ,

i m p l i e s an

a s s o c i a t i o n of p e r s o n s

f o r t h e

promotion

of t h e i r

g e n e r a l

w e l f a r e .

Each one of t h e p e r s o n s

a s s o c i a t e d .

becomes

a

m e m b e r of h e

n a t i o n formed b y

t h e a s s o c i a t i o n . ) . A t base

A p p e l l a n t s

ask

t h a t

we

f o r c i b l y

impose

a

compact of


—with i t s concomitant r i g h t s ,

o b l i g a t i o n s , and

i m p l i c a t i o n s f or

c u l t u r a l

i d e n t i t y 1 2—on

a

d i s t i n c t

and


t e r r i t o r y

of

e o p l e ,

i n

t h e

absence

of v i d e n c e

t h a t

a m a j o r i t y

of

h e

t e r r i t o r y ' s i n h a b i t a n t s endorse

such

a i e

and

where

t h e

t e r r i t o r y ' s


e l e c t e d

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

a c t i v e l y oppose such

a

compact.

We

can

e n v i s i o n l i t t l e

t h a t

i s more anomalous,

under

modern

s t a n d a r d s ,

t h a n t h e

f o r c i b l e

i m p o s i t i o n

of

i t i z e n s h i p

' 2

See a l s o , e . g . , Robert

B.

o r t e r ,

T he Demise of

h e Ong weh o weh

and

t h e Rise

o f

h e Native

Americans:

Redressing

t h e

Genocidal

Act o f

orcing

American


U pon

Indigenous

Peoples,

15

HARV LACKLETTER

.J.

107,

169

1999)

arguing

t h a t


[forcing

American

c i t i z e n s h i p upon

Indigenous

[ N a t i v e

American] p e o p l e

[ d e s t r u c t i v e l y ] t r a n s f o r m e d [ t h e i r ]

p o l i t i c a l

i d e n t i t y

) .



t

SC;A s = ;

. 3 -

27~

~

c ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ n t

, p ~

4 C }

i l e a : t ~ 6 f C ~

/201

~a ~

f

22

a g a i n s t t h e

m a j o r i t a r i a n

w i 1 1 . 1 3

S e e ,

e . g . ,

U.N.

h a r t e r a r t s .

1 ,

73

( r e c o g n i z i n g

s e l f -

d e t e r m i n a t i o n of

p e o p l e as

a

g u i d i n g

p r i n c i p l e

and

o b l i g i n g

members t o

t a k e

due

account of h e

p o l i t i c a l

a s p i r a t i o n s of

t h e peoples

i n h a b i t i n g non

- s e l f -

governing t e r r i t o r i e s

under

a member's

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) ;

1 4

A t l a n t i c

C h a r t e r ,

U.S.

-U.K., Aug.

14, 1941

( e n d o r s i n g

r e s p e c t

[ f o r ]

t h e

r i g h t

of

l l

p e o p l e s

t o

choose t h e form

of

government under

whi c h t h e y

w i l l

l i v e ) ;

Woodrow

Wilson,

P r e s i d e n t ,

United

S t a t e s ,

F o u r t e e n P o i n t s , Address t o

J o i n t

S e s s i o n

of

Congress

( J a n .

8,

1918) [ I ] n

d e t e r m i n i n g

a l l

[]

q u e s t i o n s

of

s o v e r e i g n t y t h e

i n t e r e s t s

of

t h e p o p u l a t i o n s

concerned

must have

e q u a l weight

w i t h

t h e

e q u i t a b l e

c l a i m s

of h e

government

whose

t i t l e

i s t o

be d e t e r m i n e d . )

P o i n t

V).

See

a l s o Tuaua,

951 F.

Supp. 2d a t

91

American

Samoans t a k e

p r i d e i n

t h e i r unique

p o l i t i c a l

and

c u l t u r a l

p r a c t i c e s ,

and

t h e y

c e l e b r a t e i t s

h i s t o r y

f r e e

from c o n q u e s t

o r

i n v o l u n t a r y

a n n e x a t i o n by

f o r e i g n

powers.

) .

T o

h o l d t h e

c o n t r a r y would be t o

mandate

a n

i r r e g u l a r

i n t r u s i o n i n t o

t h e

autonomy

of

Samo an

d e m o c r a t i c

d e c i s i o n-making;

an

e x e r c i s e of

p a t e r n a l i s m

—if

o t o v e r t

c u l t u r a l

imperialism—

o f f e n s i v e

t o

t h e s h a r e d

d e m o c r a t i c t r a d i t i o n s

of h e

U n i t e d

S t a t e s

and

modern

American

Samoa.

See

K i n g

Andrus,

52

F.

Supp.

11, 15

(D.D.C. 1977)

T he i n s t i t u t i o n s

of

t h e

p r e s e n t

government of

American

S a m o a

r e f l e c t

. t h e

d e m o c r a t i c

t r a d i t i o n .... ) .

1 3

Complex

q u e s t i o n s

a r i s e

where


i n h a b i t a n t s


determine

e i t h e r

t o

pursue

c i t i z e n s h i p or

withdraw

from

union

with

a

s t a t e .

Such

s c e n a r i o s may i m p l i c a t e t h e

r e c i p r o c a l

a s s o c i a t i o n a l r i g h t s

of

h e

s t a t e ' s

c u r r e n t

c i t i z e n s

or

t h e

r i g h t t o

i n t e g r i t y of

h e

s o v e r e i g n

i t s e l f

1 4 But ee

Medellin

v . Texas,

552

U.S.

91

(2008).



~I~~A

~~s

s ~ ` 1 3

5~7~

~~

~ f m ~ n ~

~ p15

4

a i l

c ~ .

C } ~ I

t 2 C ~ l

~ ~ c ~ 2 : 3

c i f

23

IV

For h e

f o r e g o i n g

r e a s o n s

t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s

A f f i r m e d



No. 15

-A-

IN

THE

~~x~xezzte

~a ~tx~

a~ ~~e

~ z ~ t ~ e ~ ~~~~es

LENEUOTI

FIAFIATUAUA,

VA ALEAMA TOVIA

FOSI,

r~vuAT~vu

F. .

M~EA

ON

BEHALF

OFHIMSELF

AND

HIS

THREE

MINOR

CHILDREN,

TAFFY-LEI

T.MAENEE~InT~

AF~vA,

ANDSAMOAN EDERATION

OFAMERICA,

NC.,


v .

UNITED

STATES

OF

AMERICA,

T L.,

Respondents.

CERTIFICATEOF ERVICE

I

hereby

c e r t i f y

that

I am a

member n

good

standing

of

the

bar

of h i s Court

a n d that

on

t h i s

14th day

of

December,

2015,

I caused a

copy

of the

foregoing

Application

For

An

xtension

Of

i m e

Within

W h ic h

To

i l e

A e t i t i o n

For

A

rit

Of

C e r t i o r a r i

to

the

D i s t r i c t

of

Columbia

C i r c u i t t o

be

served

by

t h i r d

-party

commercial

c a r r i e r

on

the

counsel

and p a r t i e s

i d e n t i f i e d below, pursuant o Rul e

29

f

he Rules

of

t h i s Court.

I

further c e r t i f y

that

I

caused

an

e l e c t r o n i c

version of

the same

o

be

transmitted to

the

counsel

i d e n t i f i e d

below

at

the

addresses

i n d i c a t e d .

A l l p a r t i e s

required t o be served have

be e n

served.

Donald

B.

e r r i l l i J r .

S o l i c i t o r

General

of

he

United

States

U.S.

DEPARTMENTOF TUSTICE

950

ennsylvania

Av enue,

N.W.

Room

616

Washington,

D.C. 20530

-0001

202)514

-2217

supremectbriefs

@

sdoj.gov

Counsel

or

Defendants

Respondents

United States

t

a l .

Michael F.

Williams

KIRKLAND

LLIS

LLP

655

15th

S t r e e t N.W.

Suite 1200

Washington,

D.C. 20005

202)

79

-5000

michael.williams

@kirkland.com

Counsel

or

n t e r v e n o r s -Respondents

American Samoa

overnment t

a l .



Hon. ohn

F.

erry

Secretary of

tate

U.S.

DEPARTMENT

OF

TATE

2201

C

t r e e t ,

N W

Washington,

D.C.

20520

202) 47-4000

De

e n d a n t -Respondent

Served Pursuant

o

Rule

9 . 4 a ) )

Hon.

Michele Bond

Assistant

Secretary of

tate

o r

the

Bureau

of

Consular f f a i r s

U.S.

DEPARTMENT

OF

TATE

2201 C

t r e e t ,

N W

Washington,

D.C. 20520

202)

47-4000

De

endant-

Respondent

Served Pursuant

o

Rule

9 . 4 a ) )

Jonathan

C.

Bond

Counsel

o r


2

Tuaua v US, Extension Application for Cert Petition w Certificates (as-Filed)

Documents

Transcript of Tuaua v US, Extension Application for Cert Petition w Certificates (as-Filed)