Igartua v. United States, 626 F.3d 592

Igartúa and others sue to obtain a right for Puerto Rico residents to vote for a Representative to the U.S. House and for PR representation from Congress.
The district court dismissed; the First Circuit affirms de novo that PR residents have no constitutional right to vote for House members because PR is not a state.
Igartúa III (en banc) previously held ICCPR rights are not self-executing and treaty rights do not create domestic individual rights without implementing legislation.
The government advances functional equivalence and Boumediene-style arguments to treat PR as a state for Article I purposes, and argues treaties cannot override the Constitution.
Igartúa and the Commonwealth also rely on ICCPR and customary international law to claim an enforceable domestic remedy.
The panel majority affirms dismissal; the dissent argues the ICCPR may be self-executing and justify declaratory/reparative relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutional status and voting for PR residents	Igartúa: PR residents have House voting rights absent statehood.	Igartúa III holds PR is not a state; voting rights attach to states.	No constitutional right to vote for House members for PR residents.
Functional equivalence and Boumediene	PR can be treated as state-like for Article I purposes and Boumediene supports de facto statehood.	No functional equivalence; Boumediene does not alter Article I statehood rules.	Functional-equivalent approach rejected; Boumediene does not apply to Article I voting rights.
ICCPR self-execution and domestic rights	ICCPR provisions are self-executing and confer private rights enforceable in court.	ICCPR is non-self-executing; treaty rights do not create private causes of action absent implementing legislation.	ICC PRICPR not self-executing; treaty rights not enforceable as domestic private rights.
Supremacy Clause and remedy under ICCPR	Supremacy Clause makes ICCPR enforceable; declaratory relief possible to vindicate rights.	Treaty-based rights do not override Constitution and DJA relief is inappropriate/insufficient.	Court affirms dismissal; no justiciable remedy under ICCPR without self-execution.

Igartúa-de la Rosa v. United States (Igartúa III), 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2005) (ICCPR not self-executing; treaty rights not domestic unless self-executing or implemented)
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (S. Ct. 1964) (Constitutional structure ties representation to statehood and population)
Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (Territorial status context; not controlling Article I voting rights)
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (U.S. 2008) (Self-execution analysis depends on treaty language and implementing statutes)
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2004) (ICCPR not self-executing; treaty status depends on language)
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1901) (Territories and state distinctions under Insular Cases framework)
Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (U.S. 1974) (Territorial status and constitutional protections scope)
Tidewater Transfer Co. v. United States, 337 U.S. 582 (U.S. 1949) (Territorial clause and congressional power over territories)