Igartua v. Trump
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14677
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellants (Puerto Rico residents) sued claiming they are denied a constitutional right to vote for U.S. House representatives because Congress has not apportioned representation for Puerto Rico and by relying on the ICCPR treaty.
- Plaintiffs sought convening of a three-judge district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a); the district court denied that request and dismissed the complaint; the panel affirmed and denied rehearing en banc.
- The panel majority held the complaint did not present a challenge to the constitutionality of congressional apportionment under § 2284(a) and treated the treaty-based theory as a dispute between two acts of the United States (statute vs. treaty), not a constitutional apportionment claim requiring a three-judge court.
- The majority applied the “wholly insubstantial” threshold for constitutional claims and concluded plaintiffs’ constitutional theory (that the Constitution prohibits apportionment as currently implemented) is insubstantial; it also rejected recasting a treaty claim as a Supremacy Clause constitutional claim for § 2284 purposes.
- Three judges dissented from the denial of en banc review (Torruella, Lipez, Thompson), arguing the three-judge question is of exceptional importance, the prior First Circuit footnote resolving § 2284 applicability was cursory and unreasoned, and treaty-based and non‑apportionment claims could be substantial and thus warrant a three-judge court and full en banc consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2284(a) requires convening a three-judge district court for plaintiffs’ claim | Igartúa: claim challenges constitutionality of congressional apportionment (no apportionment for PR) and §2284(a) applies | Govt: claim is not a constitutional apportionment challenge; prior First Circuit precedent controls; claims are insubstantial/nonjusticiable | Majority: §2284(a) inapplicable — complaint does not present a constitutional challenge to apportionment that requires a three-judge court; rehearing en banc denied |
| Whether plaintiffs’ treaty-based ICCPR claim converts to a constitutional Supremacy Clause claim that triggers §2284(a) | Igartúa: ICCPR creates federal-law obligations that may require Congress to apportion representation to Puerto Rico, so claim is substantial | Govt: treaty argument is essentially a conflict between legislative acts; courts cannot order constitutional amendments, statehood, or force Congress to act; not justiciable relief | Majority: treaty claim is effectively a clash between U.S. acts (treaty/statute) and is not a constitutional apportionment challenge for §2284(a); not sufficient to trigger three-judge court |
| Whether plaintiffs’ constitutional claims are “wholly insubstantial” | Igartúa: claims are substantial and deserve full adjudication before a three-judge court; Adams precedent supports convening | Govt: claims lack merit and relief sought may be unavailable; thus insubstantial/not justiciable | Majority: plaintiffs’ core constitutional theory (that Constitution forbids apportionment as written) is wholly insubstantial; denial affirmed |
| Whether the panel’s prior footnote ruling (Igartúa IV) is binding and whether en banc review is warranted | Igartúa: prior footnote was cursory and wrongly decided; issue is of exceptional importance and merits en banc review | Govt/majority: panel bound by precedent; prior treatment controls; no basis for en banc | Dissenters: prior footnote is inadequate; issue is of exceptional importance and merits en banc consideration; en banc denial was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Vazza v. Campbell, 520 F.2d 848 (1st Cir. 1975) (standard that a dismissal can be affirmed only if constitutional claims are “wholly insubstantial”)
- Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512 (1973) (discussing insubstantiality standard for constitutional claims)
- Gonzalez v. Automatic Emps. Credit Union, 419 U.S. 90 (1974) (jurisdictional test: presence of a substantial federal question)
- Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (treaties may be treated as equivalent to acts of Congress for domestic enforcement)
- United States v. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938) (Footnote Four—heightened scrutiny for discrete and insular minorities)
- Igartúa v. United States, 626 F.3d 592 (1st Cir. 2010) (prior First Circuit decision containing the brief footnote on three-judge court applicability)
- Igartúa v. Obama, 842 F.3d 149 (1st Cir. 2016) (panel opinion affirming denial and questioning correctness of prior footnote)
- Adams v. Clinton, 531 U.S. 941 (2000) (Supreme Court’s unexplained affirmance of judgment from a three-judge district court that had considered a no-apportionment claim)