Leneuoti Tuaua v. United States
788 F.3d 300
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- Appellants: persons born in American Samoa, statutorily designated non-citizen nationals under 8 U.S.C. § 1408(1), sued to have the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause declared to confer birthright U.S. citizenship.
- American Samoa is an unincorporated U.S. territory with local self-government (elected governor and legislature) but ultimate supervision by the Secretary of the Interior; its government and elected representatives oppose imposition of U.S. citizenship.
- District court dismissed the constitutional claim under Rule 12(b)(6); this appeal presents only the constitutional Citizenship Clause question (de novo review).
- Central legal question: whether the phrase “born . . . in the United States” in the Fourteenth Amendment includes persons born in unincorporated territories like American Samoa.
- The court found the Clause textually ambiguous on whether territorial births are “in the United States,” and applied the Insular Cases’ territorial-incorporation framework and pragmatic concerns (impractical/anomalous test) to decide the issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s phrase “born . . . in the United States” includes unincorporated territories like American Samoa | Tuaua: The Citizenship Clause is broad; text, structure, and common-law jus soli support inclusion of territories | U.S./Intervenors: Text ambiguous; Insular Cases and practical considerations limit Clause’s reach to incorporated territory; Congress/statute governs territorial nationality | Held: No — Citizenship Clause does not constitutionally confer birthright citizenship to those born in American Samoa |
| Whether common-law jus soli (Wong Kim Ark) compels territorial birthright citizenship | Tuaua: Fourteenth Amendment codifies jus soli and should apply broadly to the sovereign’s domain | Gov: Wong Kim Ark concerned births in states; jus soli includes allegiance/jurisdiction limits and does not resolve territorial scope | Held: Wong Kim Ark does not control the territorial question; allegiance/jurisdiction limitations and context matter |
| Whether the Insular Cases or pragmatic (impractical/anomalous) considerations permit denying birthright citizenship in territories | Tuaua: Insular framework outdated; citizenship is fundamental and should apply | Intervenors/U.S.: Insular Cases apply; extending citizenship against local democratic will would be impractical/anomalous and potentially disruptive to Samoan communal institutions | Held: Insular Cases framework applies; granting citizenship over territory’s democratically expressed objections would be impractical and anomalous, so Clause does not mandate citizenship |
Key Cases Cited
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (establishes judicial review and constitutional supremacy)
- United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (discusses common-law jus soli and interpretation of Citizenship Clause in state context)
- Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (part of the Insular Cases framework on territorial application of the Constitution)
- Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (addresses impractical/anomalous considerations in constitutional application)
- Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (interprets “subject to the jurisdiction” requirement of the Citizenship Clause)
- Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (Insular Cases line on which constitutional provisions apply in territories)
- Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (example of non-application of certain constitutional rights in unincorporated territories)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (endorses pragmatic, context-sensitive approach to constitutional reach in extraterritorial/territorial settings)