Tuaua v. United States of America
951 F. Supp. 2d 88
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs: five American Samoans (non‑citizen U.S. nationals) and a Samoan community organization challenge federal law and State Department practice that treat persons born in American Samoa as U.S. nationals but not U.S. citizens at birth.
- Legal claim: plaintiffs contend the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause applies to American Samoa, so persons born there are U.S. citizens at birth; they also challenge INA § 308(1) and related State Department passport endorsements under the APA.
- American Samoa is an unincorporated U.S. territory administered by the Interior Department; its constitution protects communal land and traditional practices (fa'a Samoa).
- Federal practice: INA and State Department policy classify American Samoans as noncitizen U.S. nationals; passports carry an endorsement reflecting that status; naturalization is available but burdensome.
- Procedural posture: defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the court found it had jurisdiction but granted dismissal for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause applies to persons born in American Samoa | Citizenship Clause covers all persons "born in the United States," which should include American Samoa, making birthright citizenship constitutional | The Citizenship Clause does not extend to unincorporated territories like American Samoa; citizenship there has historically been statutory, not constitutional | Court: Clause does not guarantee birthright citizenship to American Samoans; dismissal for failure to state a claim |
| Whether INA § 308(1) and State Dept. policy are unconstitutional | Section 308(1) and passport practice conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment and must be invalidated | Longstanding statute and administrative practice reflect Congress's authority and historical precedent; policy is consistent with precedent | Court: Declination to disrupt statutory/administrative framework; plaintiffs' constitutional challenge fails |
| Justiciability — political question doctrine | Plaintiffs: constitutional application question is judicially manageable and not a demand for statehood | Defendants: claim effectively seeks political determination (statehood), nonjusticiable | Court: Not a political question; court has jurisdiction but rules against plaintiffs on the merits |
| Standing and APA timeliness | Plaintiffs: at least some plaintiffs have timely APA claims and standing; organization represents members | Defendants: some APA claims time‑barred; organization lacks standing | Court: Sufficient plaintiffs have standing and timely claims for jurisdictional purposes; did not rely on these to reach merits dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) (Insular Cases view that not all constitutional provisions automatically apply in unincorporated territories)
- Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) (Sixth Amendment jury right limitation in unincorporated territory)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (constrains but recognizes continued relevance of Insular Cases doctrine in extraterritorial/territorial contexts)
- Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (test for applying constitutional protections extraterritorially; citizenship of petitioners relevant)
- Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) (citizenship described as substantial right — cited but distinguished as nonterritorial precedent)
- Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) (discussion of noncitizen nationals; referenced regarding status of American Samoa)
- Nolos v. Holder, 611 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2010) (held Citizenship Clause did not cover the Philippines when it was a U.S. territory)
- Valmonte v. INS, 136 F.3d 914 (2d Cir. 1998) (similar holding on territorial application of Citizenship Clause)
- Rabang v. INS, 35 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1994) (territorial interpretation rejecting automatic application of Citizenship Clause)