The Insular Cases are a group of‐some fourteen decisions of the period 1901–1904 that involve the application of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to overseas territories (see Territories and New States). The cases arose after the United States acquired island territories through the treaty ending the Spanish‐American War (1898). The nation's determination to become a world power, as evidenced by the war and the acquisition of foreign territories, received overwhelming popular endorsement in the presidential election of 1900. The Insular Cases translated the political dispute into the vocabulary of the Constitution, with the Supreme Court eventually echoing the popular sentiment.
Two competing positions lay behind the arguments before the Court. One opinion, largely racially motivated, was that the people of the new territories were unfit to become citizens—a conclusion that foreclosed the possibility of statehood and relegated the people to permanent territorial status (see Citizenship; Race and Racism). The other view was the century‐old tradition that all territory would eventually become states.
The Insular Cases presented three questions of constitutional law and statutory construction: (1) whether the national government had the power to acquire territories by treaty; (2) whether certain statutes applied to territories; and (3) whether the Bill of Rights applied automatically to any territory upon acquisition by the United States. In De Lima v. Bidwell (1901) the Court confirmed that the nation had the power to acquire territory, pointing for support to the long history of acquisitions.
The Court also considered whether duties could be imposed on goods shipped between Puerto Rico and the United States. For goods imported into the United States, the Court avoided the constitutional question by relying upon language in the Dingley Tariff Act (1897), which imposed tariffs on “all articles imported from foreign countries.” In De Lima, Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote for the Court that Puerto Rico ceased to be “foreign” once ceded to the United States by treaty. Hence, the statute did not apply to Puerto Rico.
The Court could not, however, avoid the constitutional question for goods exported to Puerto Rico. So long as the United States military governed there, exports could be taxed under the war powers of Congress (Dooley v. United States, 1901). Once the special powers of the military ended, however, any imposition of tariffs seemed to violate the Constitution's requirement that duties be “uniform throughout the United States” (Art. I, sec. 8). In
Later cases, involving the Bill of Rights, revealed a movement away from Brown's position to White's, which is still the prevailing view. Brown continued to find modest restrictions in the Constitution itself. For example, he held in Hawaii v. Mankichi (1903) that, in the absence of congressional action, only those rights that were “fundamental in their nature” would apply (p. 218). Justice White agreed with the conclusion that there was no requirement for indictment by a grand jury or a unanimous jury. But he again concluded that because Congress had not incorporated Hawaii into the United States, no part of the Bill of Rights applied.
A majority of the Court finally accepted the incorporation doctrine in Dorr v. United States (1904). Justice William R. Day noted that the natives of the Philippines were not fit for
The cases present myriad justifications and tortured reasoning. Their clear import is that the justices wanted to allow the president and Congress the greatest possible freedom in world affairs. Many people thought that the opinions reflected the election results, since in the election of 1906 the voters had soundly rejected the Democrats' call to repudiate the acquisition of overseas territories. But the cases show more than a politically savvy Court; they also anticipate the later debate over the application of the Bill of Rights to the states, when “incorporation” and “fundamental rights” would again be operative phrases. The Court's opinions therefore represent tentative, early arguments in what would become half a century of debate about the reach of the Bill of Rights.
Bibliography
- James E. Kerr, The Insular Cases: The Role of the Judiciary in American Expansionism (1982)
— Walter F. Pratt Jr.
