Federal
Acknowledging that the United States Supreme Court's decisions in the Insular Cases and the "territorial incorporation doctrine" are contrary to the text and history of the United States Constitution, rest on racial views and stereotypes from the era of Plessy v. Ferguson that have long been rejected, are contrary to our Nation's most basic constitutional and democratic principles, and should be rejected as having no place in United States constitutional law.
Source: Congress.gov ·
1,499 words in original text
Plain English summary not yet available
The full original text is available below. Check back soon as we process this bill.
IV
117TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. RES. 279
Acknowledging that the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in the
Insular Cases and the ‘‘territorial incorporation doctrine’’ are contrary
to the text and history of the United States Constitution, rest on racial
views and stereotypes from the era of Plessy v. Ferguson that have
long been rejected, are contrary to our Nation’s most basic constitutional
and democratic principles, and should be rejected as having no place
in United States constitutional law.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 26, 2021
Mr. GRIJALVA (for himself, Ms. PLASKETT, Mr. SABLAN, Mr. SAN NICOLAS,
Miss GONZA´LEZ-COLO´N, Ms. VELA´ZQUEZ, Mr. GARCI´A of Illinois, and
Mr. TORRES of New York) submitted the following resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Com-
mittee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall
within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
RESOLUTION
Acknowledging that the United States Supreme Court’s deci-
sions in the Insular Cases and the ‘‘territorial incorpora-
tion doctrine’’ are contrary to the text and history of
the United States Constitution, rest on racial views and
stereotypes from the era of Plessy v. Ferguson that
have long been rejected, are contrary to our Nation’s
most basic constitutional and democratic principles, and
should be rejected as having no place in United States
constitutional law.
VerDate Sep 11 2014
22:51 Mar 29, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6652
E:\BILLS\HR279.IH
HR279
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2
•HRES 279 IH
Whereas territories have been an important part of the
United States since the beginning of our Nation, starting
with the Northwest Territory in 1787, with Chief Justice
John Marshall writing for the Supreme Court in 1820
that ‘‘the United States’’ is ‘‘the name given to our great
republic, which is composed of States and territories’’
(Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317, 319
(1820));
Whereas today the United States has 5 populated territories,
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Is-
lands of the United States, which together have a popu-
lation of over 3,500,000 residents, equal to the popu-
lation of the 5 smallest States combined, more than 95
percent of whom are racial or ethnic minorities;
Whereas Puerto Rico and Guam have now been a part of the
United States since 1898, American Samoa since 1900,
the Virgin Islands of the United States since 1917, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
since 1986;
Whereas until the Insular Cases were decided in the early
1900s, the Supreme Court long recognized that Congress’
powers over the territories, while broad, were ‘‘not abso-
lute and unlimited’’, but rather subject ‘‘to such restric-
tions as are expressed in the Constitution’’ (Murphy v.
Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 44 (1885));
Whereas following the acquisition of Hawaii, Puerto Rico,
Guam, and other overseas territories in 1898, the Su-
preme Court’s decisions in the Insular Cases broke from
its prior precedent to establish a doctrine of territorial in-
corporation, creating for the first time a distinction be-
tween so-called ‘‘incorporated’’ territories, where the
VerDate Sep 11 2014
22:51 Mar 29, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR279.IH
HR279
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3
•HRES 279 IH
United States Constitution applies ‘‘in full’’, and ‘‘unin-
corporated’’ territories, where the Constitution applies
‘‘only in part’’ (Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 757
(2008));
Whereas the judgment of the Court in Downes v. Bidwell
(182 U.S. 244 (1901)), the most prominent of the Insu-
lar Cases, was delivered by Justice Henry Billings
Brown, the author of Plessy v. Ferguson’s doctrine of
‘‘separate but equal’’, who wrote that America’s newly ac-
quired overseas territories were ‘‘inhabited by alien races,
differing from us in religion, customs, . . . and modes of
thought’’, making it impossible to govern ‘‘according to
Anglo-Saxon principles’’;
Whereas Justice Edward White, who in a separate 3-Justice
plurality developed the territorial incorporation doctrine
in Downes, expressed concerns over the ‘‘evils’’ of admit-
ting ‘‘millions of inhabitants’’ of ‘‘unknown islands, peo-
pled with an uncivilized race’’, who he believed would be
‘‘absolutely unfit’’ for citizenship;
Whereas 4 Justices dissented in Downes, with Chief Justice
Melville Fuller commenting that ‘‘[g]reat stress is thrown
upon the word ‘incorporation,’ as if possessed of some oc-
cult meaning’’, and Justice John Marshall Harlan ex-
pressing that the ‘‘idea of ‘incorporation’ . . . is enveloped
in some mystery which I am unable to unravel’’;
Whereas Justice Harlan, who penned the lone dissent to
Plessy v. Ferguson, also wrote a series of powerful dis-
sents to the Insular Cases, declaring in Downes that
‘‘[t]he idea that this country may acquire territories any-
where upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold
them as mere colonies or provinces—the people inhab-
iting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress chooses
VerDate Sep 11 2014
22:51 Mar 29, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR279.IH
HR279
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
4
•HRES 279 IH
to accord to them—is wholly inconsistent with the spirit
and genius, as well as with the words, of the Constitu-
tion’’;
Whereas the Insular Cases and the territorial incorporation
doctrine have long received significant criticism from the
Supreme Court and a broad range of jurists and legal
scholars;
Whereas, in 2008, the Supreme Court stated that ‘‘[t]he
Constitution grants Congress and the President the
power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the
power to decide when and where its terms apply’’, ex-
pressing further that ‘‘over time the ties between the
United States and any of its unincorporated Territories
[may] strengthen in ways that are of constitutional sig-
nificance’’ (Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. at 758, 765
(2008));
Whereas, in 2020, the Supreme Court questioned the ‘‘con-
tinued validity’’ of the Insular Cases, indicating ‘‘that the
Insular Cases should not be further extended’’ (Fin.
Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., 140
S.Ct. 1649, 1665 (2020));
Whereas Judge Juan Torruella, who served on the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from 1984
until his death in 2020, labeled the territorial incorpora-
tion doctrine a ‘‘doctrine of separate and unequal’’, writ-
ing that ‘‘the Insular Cases represent classic Plessy v.
Ferguson legal doctrine and thought that should be
eradicated from present-day constitutional reasoning’’ be-
cause they run contrary to ‘‘the most basic precept for
which this nation stands: the equality before the law of
all its citizens’’;
VerDate Sep 11 2014
22:51 Mar 29, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR279.IH
HR279
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
5
•HRES 279 IH
Whereas Chief Judge Gustavo Gelpı´, who has served on the
United States District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico since 2006, has called the Insular Cases’ territorial
incorporation doctrine ‘‘a doctrine of pure judicial inven-
tion, with absolutely no basis in the Constitution and one
that is contrary to all judicial precedent and territorial
practice’’;
Whereas legal scholars with a wide range of views have criti-
cized the Insular Cases and the territorial incorporation
doctrine, with prominent originalist legal scholar Gary
Lawson writing that ‘‘there is nothing in the Constitution
that even intimates that express constitutional limitations
on national power apply differently to different terri-
tories’’, and leading Constitutional Law Professor San-
ford Levinson calling the Insular Cases ‘‘central docu-
ments in the history of American racism’’;
Whereas the territorial incorporation doctrine established by
the Insular Cases is still used to perpetuate the second-
class treatment of Americans living in the territories,
from the denial of citizenship, to the denial of voting
rights, to the denial of equality in Federal benefits pro-
grams; and
Whereas the time has come to expressly reject the Insular
Cases as both contrary to the Constitution’s text and his-
tory and as incompatible with our Nation’s core values:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
1
(1) recognizes that America’s constitutional and
2
democratic principles apply throughout the United
3
States, including both States and territories;
4
VerDate Sep 11 2014
22:51 Mar 29, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR279.IH
HR279
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
6
•HRES 279 IH
(2) acknowledges that the Insular Cases are
1
contrary to the text and history of the Constitution;
2
(3) acknowledges that the Insular Cases are rel-
3
ics of the racial views of an earlier era that have no
4
place in our Nation today; and
5
(4) rejects the Insular Cases and their applica-
6
tion to all present and future cases and controversies
7
involving the application of the Constitution in
8
United States territories.
9
Æ
VerDate Sep 11 2014
22:51 Mar 29, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HR279.IH
HR279
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Important: This plain English summary was generated by AI and is provided for informational purposes only.
It is not legal advice. Always consult the official bill text on Congress.gov
or a qualified attorney for legal matters.