The Insular Cases are a series of early-20th-century decisions in which the Supreme Court considered the applicability of the U.S. Constitution and other federal laws to newly acquired territories. See De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901); Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901); Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); Hawaii v. Manchiki, 190 U.S. 197 (1903); Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904); Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922). In past filings, the Department has recognized that the Insular Cases contain reasoning and rhetoric that are “obviously anathema,”[Footnote 1] and “indefensible and discredited,”[Footnote 2] and that they invoke “racist stereotypes” that are “indefensible and repugnant.”[Footnote 3] Consistent with these statements, it is the Department’s view that the racist language and logic of the Insular Cases deserve no place in our law. Department litigators can and should include similar statements, as appropriate, in filings addressing the Insular Cases.

[Footnote 1] Tr. of Oral Arg. at 10, United States v. Vaello Madero, 596 U.S. 159 (2022) (No. 20-303).

[Footnote 2] U.S. Br. in Opp. at 16, Fitisemanu v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 362 (2022) (No. 21-1394).

[Footnote 3] Memorandum of Law of the United States in Support of the Constitutionality of PROMESA at 16, In re: The Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, No. 17-bk-4780-LTS (D.P.R. filed Mar. 13, 2024), ECF No. 5069.

[added July 2024]