SYMHC Classics: Insular Cases

Summary

Stuff You Missed in History Class – SYMHC Classics: Insular Cases (Released May 9, 2026)

---

Episode Overview

This episode, hosted by Tracy V. Wilson and Holly Fry, revisits the infamous Insular Cases—early 20th-century Supreme Court decisions that determined the rights of people living in U.S.-controlled island territories acquired after the Spanish-American War. The hosts explore how these cases established a legal framework distinguishing "incorporated" from "unincorporated" territories, thereby denying residents of these territories full constitutional rights. The episode unpacks the origins, content, and enduring legacies of the Insular Cases, laying bare their explicit roots in colonialism and racism and examining their ongoing ramifications for citizenship, representation, and rights.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Setting the Stage: U.S. Territorial Expansion Before 1898

• Early Territorial Policy: Before the Spanish-American War, the U.S. approached expansion with the assumption that all acquired territories would eventually become states. Territories were always “incorporated”—fully part of the U.S. under the Constitution (06:01).
  • “Assumption is not even a strong enough word. It was obvious and unquestioned that newly acquired territory would be admitted into the Union as states.” – Holly Fry (11:04)
• Manifest Destiny & Indigenous Dispossession: The doctrine of Manifest Destiny justified U.S. expansion as inevitable duty while enabling wars and removal policies against Indigenous peoples (09:41–10:30).
• Earlier Exceptions: Islands claimed for guano under the 1856 Guano Islands Act and the ambiguous status of Alaska post-1867.

2. The Spanish-American War & New Acquisitions

• New Territories: With the 1898 Treaty of Paris, the U.S. obtained Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, annexed Hawaii, and took part of Samoa (16:00–19:56).
• Motives: Strategic military, commercial, and racist justifications for keeping these as territories, not states.
  • Racist arguments both for and against annexation; fears of “foreign” and “non-white” populations becoming citizens (20:36–21:44).
  • “There were basically people who didn’t want islands full of people who were predominantly indigenous or Hispanic to suddenly become U.S. citizens.” – Tracy V. Wilson (20:36)
• Comparison to Mexican Cession: Earlier incorporated territories (e.g., the American Southwest) were smaller and less populous than new island acquisitions, intensifying resistance (21:44).

3. Shift in Policy: The Insular Cases (1901 Onward)

• Original and Core Cases: In 1901, the Supreme Court decided several cases involving tariffs and constitutional rights in new territories—the so-called Insular Cases (23:42–25:03).
  • Key cases: Downs v. Bidwell, DeLima v. Bidwell, Dooley v. U.S., Fourteen Diamond Rings v. U.S., and more.
• Defining ‘Incorporated’ vs. ‘Unincorporated’ Territories:
  • Established concept: territories can “belong” to the U.S., but not be “part of” it for constitutional purposes.
  • “Puerto Rico, and by extension the other island territories, were not foreign countries in terms of tariff law, but also were not part of the United States in any way that would bring them under the Constitution’s uniformity clause.” – Tracy V. Wilson (31:32)
• Legal Racism and Colonial Logic:
  • Explicitly racist language in majority opinions about “alien races” and the supposed impossibility of governing them under “Anglo-Saxon principles” (32:49–34:44).
  • “The consequences will be extremely serious. Indeed, it is doubtful if Congress would ever assent to the annexation of territory upon the condition that its inhabitants... shall become at once citizens of the United States.” – Justice Brown, cited by Tracy (33:12)
• Dissenters’ Views:
  • Strong dissents warning of “a radical and mischievous change in our system of government... into an era of legislative absolutism.” – Justice Harlan, read by Tracy (35:10)
• Lasting Precedents:
  • The “Incorporation Doctrine” allows for unincorporated territories to be held indefinitely without statehood or full citizen rights (39:23).
  • This made possible “a representative democracy that sets aside several territories... as not entitled to full participation or representation in that democracy.” – Holly Fry (39:59)

4. Further Legal Developments and Contradictions

• Subsequent Cases:
  • Dorr v. United States (1904): Jury trial rights in the Philippines depended on Congressional action (36:16–37:07).
  • Hawaii v. Mankichee: Jury trial right in Hawaii applied only after its residents were granted citizenship (37:07).
  • Gonzalez v. Williams (1904): Puerto Ricans not citizens but also not “aliens”—influenced later citizenship rights (37:49–38:31).
    • Tracy notes desire to do a whole episode on Isabel Gonzalez. (38:31)
  • Balzac v. Porto Rico (1922): Press and jury rights denied to Puerto Ricans as unincorporated territory residents (38:31–39:23).
• Practical Consequences:
  • Unequal and ambiguous application of constitutional protections in new territories.
  • Residents often lack basic representation, participate in military service, and face inadequate access to federal benefits and services (42:50–49:14).

5. Modern Updates and Ongoing Impact

• Shifts over the 20th Century:
  • The Philippines: Independence in 1946.
  • Puerto Rico: U.S. citizenship in 1917; self-governance post-1950 (40:17).
  • Hawaii: Statehood in 1959, despite “racist attitudes” delaying the process (40:57).
  • Guam: U.S. citizenship via the Guam Organic Act of 1950; remains unincorporated (40:57).
  • American Samoa: Residents are U.S. nationals, not citizens (40:57-41:38).
  • Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands: Unincorporated territories (41:38).
• Present-Day Rights:
  • Fundamental rights may apply, but not all constitutional protections are guaranteed.
  • No Electoral College representation; non-voting House delegates (42:50–43:52).
• Recognition of Racist Roots:
  • Near-universal scholarly agreement that the insular cases are deeply racist and colonial (43:52–45:05).
• Recent Supreme Court Actions:
  • U.S. v. Vaello Madero (2022): Exclusion of Puerto Ricans from federal disability benefits upheld; Justice Gorsuch strongly rebukes the Insular Cases (46:25).
    • “Flaws in the insular cases are as fundamental as they are shameful. Nothing in the Constitution speaks of incorporated and unincorporated territories... They have no home in our Constitution or its original understanding.” – Justice Gorsuch, quoted at (46:25)

6. Contemporary Debates and Community Perspectives

• Birthright Citizenship for American Samoans:
  • Fitisemanu v. United States: Three American Samoans in Utah argue for birthright citizenship rights under the 14th Amendment (47:26).
  • Opposition from some American Samoans and their representatives, citing protection of fa‘a Samoa (Samoan culture) and self-determination (48:01).
    • “The citizenship clause does not require imposing birthright citizenship on the people of American Samoa over the objection of their elected representatives and government and in violation of their basic right to self determination.” – Congressional brief (48:01)
  • Samoan-American groups support citizenship; local opinions are divided.
  • “People are not a monolith... these distinctions... trickle down to all kinds of things about people’s everyday lives.” – Tracy V. Wilson (48:56)
• Veterans: High rates of service, but many are denied the right to vote for president or receive adequate care upon returning home (49:14).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

• “Assumption is not even a strong enough word. It was obvious and unquestioned that newly acquired territory would be admitted into the Union as states.” – Holly Fry (11:04)
• “The consequences will be extremely serious. Indeed, it is doubtful if Congress would ever assent to the annexation of territory upon the condition that its inhabitants... shall become at once citizens of the United States.” – Justice Brown, as read by Tracy (33:12)
• “If the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result.” – Justice Harlan’s dissent, via Tracy (35:10)
• “The insular cases can claim support in academic work of the period, ugly racial stereotypes and the theories of social Darwinists, but they have no home in our Constitution or its original understanding.” – Justice Gorsuch, as quoted by Holly (46:25)
• “People are not a monolith. There are varying opinions on this.” – Tracy V. Wilson (48:56)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment | |-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 03:07 | Introduction to the Insular Cases and U.S. territorial context | | 16:00 | Spanish-American War and acquisition of island territories | | 23:42 | The Insular Cases: what they are and how they were decided | | 30:26 | Downs v. Bidwell: Definitions of incorporated/unincorporated territories | | 32:49 | Direct reading of racist language from Supreme Court opinions | | 35:10 | Dissenting opinions on the dangers of the Insular Cases doctrine | | 37:49 | Gonzalez v. Williams and Puerto Rican citizenship issues | | 40:17 | 20th-century policy changes: citizenship and self-governance | | 46:25 | U.S. v. Vaello Madero (2022) and Justice Gorsuch’s condemnation of the Insular Cases | | 47:26 | Fitisemanu v. United States: American Samoan citizenship fight | | 49:14 | Discussion of veterans’ rights and ongoing practical effects |

---

Tone and Style

The episode is conversational and historically detailed, with the hosts punctuating legal and policy analysis with readings from original court decisions and secondary sources. Both hosts are careful to balance historical context with critical analysis, making space for multiple perspectives while sharply critiquing the racist and colonial underpinnings of the Insular Cases. They openly acknowledge the complexities and controversies around statehood, self-determination, and cultural autonomy in the affected territories.

---

Summary for New Listeners

If you haven’t heard this episode, you’ll come away with a clear understanding of how the Insular Cases reshaped U.S. territorial law and continue to disenfranchise millions of Americans today. The hosts skillfully navigate the legal jargon and dry source material, highlighting the very real, lasting impacts of these racially-motivated Supreme Court decisions—impacts still keenly felt in American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and beyond. The episode balances necessary legal explanations, pointed critiques, a few moments of wry humor, and significant empathy for the modern-day residents living with the legacy of these cases.

Transcript

[Tracy V. Wilson]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[Apple Card Advertiser]

Guaranteed Human this message is brought to you by Apple Card. You can apply for Apple Card right from the Wallet app on your iPhone. Get started in the Wallet app today. Subject to credit approval, Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA Salt Lake City Branch terms and more at applecard.com

[Tracy V. Wilson]

Work can be a little weird, and I know when I first started working, networking for work was even weirder. Sometimes it can feel hard to thrive and move forward in your career, and that is where LinkedIn comes in. LinkedIn helps you get ideas and insights from experts in your field, connect with people professionally, grow your network, and access tools designed to help you find the right fit for your next role. Whether you're just getting started, figuring out your next move or looking to accelerate your career, LinkedIn is built to support you at every stage because LinkedIn is the network that works for you. Visit LinkedIn.com class to learn more.

[T Mobile Advertiser]

Everyone deserves to be connected T Mobile and US Cellular are joining forces Our networks are coming together bringing more T Mobile coverage all over the country. Switch to T Mobile and save up to 20% versus Veriz by getting built in benefits they leave out. Check the math@t mobile.com Switch and now T Mobile is available in the US Cellular Store in Pasco Bigger network the combination of T Mobile and US Cellular's network footprints will enhance the T Mobile network's coverage savings versus comparable Verizon plans plus the costs of options, benefits, plan features and taxes and fees vary. Savings with three plus lines include third free line free via monthly bill credits credit stop if you cancel any lines Qualifying credit required.

[Holly Fry]

Wouldn't it be great to never buy gas again? EVs are as easy to charge as your phone and they are a perfect addition to your everyday life. Most people are only driving about 40 miles a day and most EVs can handle 200400 miles of range on a charge. And there are hundreds of EV models available today so there's something perfect for every lifestyle and budget. I drive an ev. I've had it for a couple of years. It's my favorite car I've ever owned. It is so fun to drive. The pickup is incredible. It's super agile and it is easy to maintain. The way forward is electric. Learn [e-mail] Happy Saturday. Coming up on the show, we have an episode about citizenship in the US and who is allowed to become a citizen that has some connections to our August 14, 2023 episode on the Insular Cases, which was a set of Supreme Court cases related to island territories claimed by the US and that is today's Saturday classic.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

In this episode we mentioned the case of Isabel Gonzalez, and I mention wishing I had focused the whole episode on her case before the Supreme Court. We did do that episode not long after this one. It came out on September 20, 2023. And this episode also briefly mentions the Philippines becoming independent from the US after World War II. And we talked about that more in our episode on Marie Arosa on May 8, 2024.

[Holly Fry]

Enjoy. Welcome to Stuff youf Missed in History Class, a production of iHeartradio.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

Hello and welcome to the podcast. I'm Tracy V. Wilson.

[Holly Fry]

And I'm Holly Fry.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

Today we're going to talk about some U.S. supreme Court cases, although not comical ones like Nix vs. Headen, which we covered recently and was about tomatoes. We are going to be talking more about tariffs, though this time. It's a collection of cases that followed the Spanish American War, and these cases together limited the rights of people living in certain U.S. territories. These cases still stand today. They still affect the lives and civil rights of people in places like American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. So people who are born in all of these territories, with the exception of American Samoa, are considered US Citizens by birth, but while living on any of these island territories, they don't have the same constitutional rights or representation in Congress as citizens who live in one of the 50 states. Some of those court cases involved the Philippines also, that was a U.S. territory at the time but has since become independent. So together these cases are known as the insular cases, with insular meaning related to islands. And they were in the news last year because the U.S. supreme Court declined to hear a case that was challenging them. Before we start with this, I want to note there's a whole range of opinion in all of these places about their relationships to the United States. Like, for example, there are American Samoans who think that they should be considered US Citizens from birth, but then others who think that would erase their existing culture and traditions. Or, as another example, there is a movement for Puerto Rican citizen statehood that's been going on for decades. But there are also people who oppose that movement, with some of the opponents advocating instead for an independent Puerto Rico. So this episode is really focused on the court cases and the context around them. It is not about the lived experiences and opinions of the people living in all of these territories. I don't think the two of us are the best people to try to like embody that.

[Land O' Lakes Advertiser]

No.

[Holly Fry]

And even if we were, I feel like that is a podcast of its own and not an episode of ours.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

Not an episode of ours for sure.

[Holly Fry]

Before we talk about these cases, we need to set the stage on how the US had approached its territories before the Spanish American War. The original borders of the United States were set under the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which formally ended the Revolutionary War between Britain and its North American colonies. This treaty did not acknowledge the indigenous nations and peoples who had been in North America for thousands of years prior to Europeans arrival or contain any reference to borders of their own lands and territory.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

For a time, the Articles of Confederation formed the basis for the US government. These were ultimately replaced by the US Constitution, which went into effect on March 4, 1789. The Constitution didn't include anything specifically about adding new territory to the United States, but it did include language about adding states. In Article 4, Section 3, quote new states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union, but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States or parts of States without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

[Holly Fry]

Section 3 also included language about territory that was not considered part of a State. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States or any particular State.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

Soon new states were being added to the Union. The first state that wasn't One of the 13 original colonies was Vermont in 1791. Kentucky became a state in 1792 from land that had previously been considered part of Virginia. Tennessee became a state four years later, formed from the Southwest Territory that was land that North Carolina had ceded to the federal government. Ohio joined the Union in 1803 and was formed from part of the Northwest

[Holly Fry]

Territory, with the exception of Vermont, which had considered itself an independent republic before becoming a state. These newly added states had all been formed from organized, incorporated territory that was already considered to be within the US Borders under the Treaty of Paris. So incorporated in this case means that the Territory is considered to be fully part of the US under the Constitution, and the only parts of the Constitution that don't apply to incorporated territory are articles that specifically apply to the states. Organized means that Congress had passed an organic act or a body of laws establishing a government, and usually a bill of rights for the Territory. So, for example, the Northwest Territory was unorganized before Congress passed the Northwest Ordinances. The Northwest Ordinances of 1787 also outlined a process for the territory to be admitted into the Union as no less than three and no more than five states.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

When the United States started acquiring new territory, that new territory was also incorporated. The first big addition of land to the United States was the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. The Treaty of Session that was part of the Louisiana Purchase Agreement said, quote, the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States. Florida was also incorporated when it became part of the United States under the Adams or Niece Treaty, which took effect in 1821. States formed from these territories were added to the Union following the same basic template that had been outlined in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

[Holly Fry]

As the 19th century continued, the United States approach to expansion was described as Manifest Destiny. That's a term first used in writing in 1845 as part of an argument that the United States should annex the Republic of Texas. This came to mean that the United States was destined to expand across the whole of North America. And this idea framed the United States expansion as necessary and inevitable and as the nation's duty. This also was connected to a series of removals, wars, and genocidal policies against the indigenous nations of North America in which tens of thousands of people were forced to leave their homelands and move to land known as Indian Territory west of the Mississippi river, primarily in what is now Oklahoma.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

Support for the philosophy of Manifest Destiny was not as universal as it sometimes described. There were people within and outside of the US Government who argued against such aggressive expansion. And there were people of a range of backgrounds, races, ethnicities, and religions who didn't want the place they were already living to be annexed or purchased by the United States for all kinds of reasons. Thousands of indigenous people also died as a result of the forced removals that were involved in making way for this expansion.

[Holly Fry]

But the underlying assumption was that any territory the US Was acquiring would become one or more states. Assumption is not even a strong enough word. It was obvious and unquestioned that newly acquired territory would be admitted into the Union as states. There were debates about whether slavery would be allowed in newly organized territory and newly admitted states, and a number of compromises and appeasements maintained a balance between slave states and free states in Congress. But there was really no debate about Whether this new territory was on a path to statehood, there was no sense at all that a territory could be unincorporated.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

The only real exception to this pattern involved the islands that were claimed under the Guano Islands act of 1856. This act allowed US citizens to claim uninhabited islands as sources of guano or bird poop. So these islands didn't need to be incorporated. They did not have a permanent human population. Alaska's status was also kind of vague for a while after the US purchased it from Russia in 1867. The US made this purchase just two years after the end of the Civil War. It was still in the middle of trying to rebuild itself. And Secretary of State William H. Seward's decision to buy Alaska was widely criticized and lampooned. Alaska was organized as the District of Alaska in 1884.

[Holly Fry]

But at the very end of the 19th century, the United States acquired territory that it didn't necessarily want to incorporate.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

And we're going to get to that

[Holly Fry]

after we have a sponsor break. Wouldn't it be great to never buy gas again? EVs are as easy to charge as your phone and they are a perfect addition to your everyday life. Most people are only driving about 40 miles a day and most EVs can handle 200 to 400 miles of range on a charge. And there are hundreds of EV models available today. So there's something perfect for every lifestyle and budget. I drive an ev. I've had it for a couple of years. It's my favorite car I've ever owned. It is so fun to drive. The pickup is incredible. It's super agile and it is easy to maintain. The way forward is electric. Learn [e-mail] we're lost.

[T Mobile Customer 1]

It feels like we're going round in circles. I'm gonna ask that man for directions. Hi there. We're trying to get to the state fairgrounds.

[T Mobile Customer 2]

Well, you're going to take a left at the old oak tree at this here road. Nah, I'm just kidding. Let me get my phone out.

[T Mobile Customer 1]

How is their signal out here?

[T Mobile Customer 2]

T Mobile and US Cellular are coming together. So the network out here is huge. We get the same great signal as the city. Saving a boatload with benefits. And there's a five year price guarantee too. Okay, here's the turn.

[T Mobile Customer 1]

Actually, can you pull up the way to a T Mobile store?

[T Mobile Advertiser]

America's best network just got bigger. Switch to T Mobile today and get built in benefits the other guys leave out plus our five year price guarantee. And now T Mobile is available at US Cellular stores in hermiston Best Mobile Network based on analysis by UKLO Speed test intelligence data second half of 2025 bigger network the combination of T Mobile's and US Cellular's network footprints will enhance the T Mobile Network's coverage price guarantee on talk text and data exclusions like taxes and fees apply. See t mobile.com for details.

[Land O' Lakes Advertiser]

Here's a life hack for waking up the whole house without an alarm. Step 1 Place a skillet over medium heat. Step 2 Add some Land O' Lakes butter for a mouth watering sizzle. And now that everyone's up, you might as well make breakfast sandwiches topped with Land O' Lakes cheese. Here's another hack by buying Land O' Lakes products, it benefits over 1,000 farmer owners and their communities. Find it in the dairy aisle.

[Public Investing Advertiser]

Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index with AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors, llc SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com disclosures.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

The United States approach to its territories really shifted during and after the Spanish American War. This war evolved from Cuba's struggle for independence from Spain, and it was also influenced by sensationalized news reporting in the United States and the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana harbor on February 15, 1898. The Treaty of Paris that formally ended the Spanish American War was signed on December 10, 1898. It recognized Cuba as an independent nation while giving the United States control of Puerto Rico and Guam. Under the treaty, the United States was also allowed to purchase the Philippines from Spain, which it did, although the Philippines had declared its Own independence and the US takeover of the Philippines sparked the two year Philippine American War. There are many treaties of Paris. This is obviously a different one than the one that formally ended the Revolutionary war.

[Holly Fry]

Paris is where all the cool treaties happen.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

It's where we always go to negotiate a peace.

[Holly Fry]

I mean, yeah, any excuse to go to Paris. While the Spanish American war was ongoing, the United States had also annexed Hawaii. For some very brief context on that, in 1875 the US and the Kingdom of Hawaii had signed a reciprocity treaty that allowed Hawaii to freely export goods like Sugar to the U.S. in exchange, the U.S. took control of an area known as Puuloa, now home to the Pearl Harbor Naval base. This treaty led to a huge explosion in the sugar industry in Hawaii driven by US Business interests which made the Hawaiian economy increasingly dependent on these exports. Then in 1893, Sanford Dole, a lawyer who was born in Hawaii to American parents, led a committee of sugar planters and other American businessmen to overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy. With the backing of the U.S. military, Dole petitioned the U.S. to annex Hawaii in 1894. And one reason the U. S did so four years later was to ensure that it did not lose control of Pearl harbor while fighting a war with Spain.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

That is like the most brief abridged synopsis and we're about to have another one because then in 1899 the US took control of part of the Samoan archipelago. Again incredibly Briefly in the 19th century, Germany, Britain and the US all established business interests in Samoa and became heavily involved in Samoan politics. Each of these nations backed different political factions and when a civil war began in 1889, one side was backed by the US and the other was backed by Germany. The first phase of fighting ended in 1889 mostly because most of the western powers ships were either damaged or destroyed in a cyclone. Violence resumed in 1893, continuing for about a year again with Germany and the US Backing opposing factions. Then when Marito Lau Pepa, leader of Samoa died in 1898, the chief justice who issued the decision on who his successor would be was an American citizen. So a lot of Samoans and Germans in Samoa opposed this decision. This led to renewed hostilities. Ultimately, Britain, the United States and Germany negotiated the Tripartite Convention without the involvement of Samoans. And this partitioned the archipelago between the United States and Germany. Just as a note, German Samoa was placed under control of New Zealand after World War I. It became independent in 1962. The U.S. portion still U.S. territory.

[Holly Fry]

So by 1899 the U.S. had taken control of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, Hawaii, and part of Samoa. And it had a number of reasons to want access to territory in the Caribbean and the Pacific. Many of these islands had strategic military importance and could also serve as refueling points for trading ships. Investors saw a range of agricultural and commercial opportunities. This was also happening as the Panama Canal was being built, a project that the US took over just a few years after taking control of these new territories. So people were seeing new potential for international shipping.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

There was also an argument for the US to take over these islands that was explicitly racist that they were not capable of governing themselves, so the United States needed to take them over. An argument not to keep control of all of these islands was also racist. There were basically people who didn't want islands full of people who were predominantly indigenous or Hispanic to suddenly become U.S. citizens. In some cases, religious prejudice was also a factor, since some of these areas were predominantly Catholic.

[Holly Fry]

This can seem like an odd argument considering that the US had already incorporated a lot of territory in North America that had previously been colonized by Spain and had some demographic similarities to these islands. Like under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican American War in 1848, Mexico ceded more than half its territory to the US people living there had been given a year to decide if they wanted to become U.S. citizens. And by the time the Spanish American War ended, multiple states had been formed from that territory.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

But as an example, when California became a state in 1850, formed from territory that had been part of Mexico, it had a population of about 92,000 people. Meanwhile, at the end of the Spanish American War, the population of Puerto Rico was more than 10 times that, and there were roughly 7 million people living in the Philippines. The entire United States population at this point was about 6,76 million people. So there were a lot of people who just completely freaked out about the idea that if the Philippines became a state, Filipinos would make up almost 10% of the population of the United States. Also, with the exception of Puerto Rico, these newly acquired islands were geographically very far from continental North America. And that added to the perception that they were more foreign than something like the southwestern part of the continent.

[Holly Fry]

Was also, to be clear, we're not suggesting that racism and prejudice were directed only at the people in these newly acquired island territories, or that everyone living in the continental US had the same constitutional rights. At this point, as Examples, after the US Civil War, the 14th Amendment had granted citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the United States and subject to US jurisdiction. And the 15th amendment had given black men the right to vote. But in practice, many black men could not freely exercise their right to vote, and women did not have a constitutional right to vote at all. Native Americans were not considered US Citizens, and immigrants from many Asian countries were banned from becoming citizens. So the idea that the US Might apply constitutional rights and protections only to some people also was not at all new. What was new was the idea that the US could acquire territory without that territory ultimately becoming a state.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

That is where we get to these supreme court cases. On May 27, 1901, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in six cases that had all been argued over the course of 1900 and 1901. Most of these were related to Puerto Rico. There was also one case relating to Hawaii and one related to the Philippines. Some constitutional law scholars frame these six decisions as the core insular cases. There are others who include two other cases that were decided in December of that same year. There are others who include a lot more cases that were decided over the next two decades for up to a total of 35 cases. So, like the argument over which cases are the insular cases can really vary depending on whose opinions you're reading.

[Holly Fry]

The idea that at least some of these cases would be grouped together as the insular cases was there right from the beginning. Some of the Court's opinions collectively refer to the insular tariff cases. In February of 1901, after the cases had been argued but before they were decided, the House of Representatives passed a resolution calling for the briefs and arguments from five of the cases to be printed together as a book called the Insular Cases. That book is 1075 pages long. Little light reading.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

Yeah. Clearly we're not gonna be talking about all of these cases in detail to quickly tick through these 1901 cases. That's not just the first six. It's the other two as well. One outlier was Hus versus New York and Puerto Rico Steamship Company. This looked at the question of whether Puerto Rican ports were domestic or foreign ports in the context of U.S. shipping law and New York laws around the pilotage of nautical vessels. Most of the other cases addressed the core question of whether Puerto Rico, Hawaii or the Philippines should be considered a foreign country in terms of tariff law. These cases were Delima vs Bidwell, Gutza vs United States, Armstrong vs United States, two different cases called Dooley vs United States, and 14 diamond rings vs United States.

[Holly Fry]

These cases all involved similar scenarios. A person or business had been required to pay a duty or had something seized by customs. But they argued that no duties or fees should have been required or customs should not have seized the goods, since the goods had not come from a foreign country. The Court issued decisions in these cases establishing that none of these places were foreign countries in the context of tariff law unless the duty had been imposed before the United States annexed them.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

The last of these 1901 cases, not in terms of time decided, just in terms of us talking about them, was Downs versus Bidwell, and that looked at whether parts of the Foraker act were constitutional. The Foraker act, also called the Puerto Rico Organic act, had been passed in April of 1900. Among its many provisions, the Foraker act established a 15% tariff on goods that were imported into Puerto Rico from the United States and vice versa. But Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, known as the Uniformity Clause, requires that, quote, all duties, imports and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. So if throughout the United States included Puerto Rico, it was unconstitutional for it to have this separate tariff. The Supreme Court's plurality decision was that no, the Foraker act was not unconstitutional because while Puerto Rico belonged to the United States, it was not part of the United States.

[Holly Fry]

Of all these cases, Dilema v. Bidwell and Downs versus Bidwell have gotten the most attention in terms of study and analysis, and Downs versus Bidwell in particular has become notorious for its racist language. We're going to get into more on that after a sponsor break.

[Apple Card Advertiser]

Latte Iced Coffee Espresso. Your new Nespresso Vertuo up machine makes the perfect cup for every morning. One button press and you can brew any coffee, any size your way. New Vertuo up press to Explore shop

[Holly Fry]

[e-mail] Wouldn't it be great to never buy gas again? EVs are as easy to charge as your phone and they are a perfect addition to your everyday life. Most people are only driving about 40 miles a day and most EVs can handle 200 to 400 miles of range on a charge. And there are hundreds of EV models available today, so there's something perfect for every lifestyle and budget. I drive an ev. I've had it for a couple of years. It's my favorite car I've ever, ever owned. It is so fun to drive. The pickup is incredible. It's super agile and it is easy to maintain. The way forward is electric. Learn [e-mail] we're lost.

[T Mobile Customer 1]

It feels like we're going round in circles. I'm gonna ask that man for directions. Hi there. We're trying to get to the State Fairgrounds.

[T Mobile Customer 2]

Well you're going to take a left at the old oak tree at this here road. Nah, I'm just kidding. Let me get my phone out.

[T Mobile Customer 1]

How is there signal out here?

[T Mobile Customer 2]

T Mobile and US Cellular are coming together so the network out here is huge. We get the same great signal as the city, saving a boatload with benefits. And there's a five year price guarantee too. Okay, here's the turn.

[T Mobile Customer 1]

Actually, can you pull up the way to a T Mobile store?

[T Mobile Advertiser]

America's best network just got bigger. Switch to T Mobile today and get built in benefits. The other guys leave leave out plus our five year price guarantee. And now T Mobile is available at US Cellular stores in Hermiston Best Mobile network Based on analysis by Ooklo Speed test intelligence data second half of 2025 bigger network the combination of T Mobile's and US Cellular's network footprints will enhance the T Mobile network's coverage price guarantee on talk text and data exclusions like taxes and fees apply. See t mobile.com for details.

[Land O' Lakes Advertiser]

Here's a life hack for waking up the whole house without an alarm. Step 1 Place the skillet over medium heat. Step 2 Add some Land O' Lakes butter for a mouth watering sizzle. And now that everyone's up, you might as well make breakfast sandwiches topped with Land O' Lakes cheese. Here's another hack. By buying Land O' Lakes products, It benefits over 1,000 farmer owners and their communities. Find it in the dairy aisle.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

As we noted before the break, in 1901, the US Supreme Court issued a decision in Downs v. Bidwell that described Puerto Rico as belonging to the United States but not part of it. Downs versus Bidwell also established a distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territory. As we talked about in the first part of this show, like this was a new idea. This was not how the United States had been doing it before. In the words of a concurring opinion by Justice Horace Gray, quote, so long as Congress has not incorporated the territory into the United States, neither military occupation nor session by treaty makes the conquered territory domestic territory in the sense of the revenue laws. But those laws concerning foreign countries remain applicable to the conquered territory until changed by Congress. If Congress is not ready to construct a complete government for the conquered territory, it may establish a temporary government which is not subject to all the restrictions of the Constitution.

[Holly Fry]

That doesn't sound like a fat loophole at all. In other words, Puerto Rico and by extension the other island territories were not foreign countries in terms of tariff law, but also were not part of the United States in any way that would bring them under the Constitution's uniformity clause.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

This decision sort of read into various parts of the Constitution and previous court decisions arguing that you really couldn't infer from the Constitution that territories were part of the United states, like the 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolished slavery, quote, within the United States or in any place subject to their jurisdiction. So. So according to this argument, that had to mean there were places that were subject to US Jurisdiction but were not part of the United States or in the 14th amendment, quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. So in the Court's view, that suggested that in the United States, States and subject to US Jurisdiction could be two totally different things.

[Holly Fry]

To quote from the plurality opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, quote, we are also of the opinion that the power to acquire territory by treaty implies not only the power to govern such territory, but to prescribe upon what terms the United States will receive its inhabitants and what their status shall be in what Chief Justice Marshall termed the American Empire. There seems to be no middle ground between this position and the doctrine that if their inhabitants do not become immediately upon annexation citizens of the United States, their children thereafter born, whether savages or civilized, are such and entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens, if such be their status, the consequences will be extremely serious. Indeed, it is doubtful if Congress would ever assent to the annexation of territory upon the condition that its inhabitants, however foreign they may be to our habits, traditions and modes of life, shall become at once citizens of the United States. Ah, legal racism.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

Yeah, it's. It's very. It's like it's straightforwardly racist. The plurality opinion concluded, quote, if those possessions are inhabited by alien races differing from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation and modes of thought, the administration of government and justice according to Anglo Saxon principles may for a time be impossible, and the question at once arises whether large concessions ought not to be made for a time that ultimately our own theories may be carried out and the blessings of a free government under the Constitution extended it to them. We decline to hold that there is anything in the Constitution to forbid such action.

[Holly Fry]

It went on to say, quote, we are therefore of opinion that the island of Puerto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution, that the Foraker act is constitutional so far as it imposes duties upon imports from such island and that the plaintiff cannot recover back the duties exacted in this case.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

So this was one of many 5, 4 decisions among the insular cases. Just in case folks are not from the US they don't necessarily know how the Supreme Court is set up. There are nine justices, and so in a lot of these cases, the decision was 5 to 4. A dissent by Chief Justice Fuller included the statement, quote, great stress is thrown upon the word incorporation, as if possessed of some occult meaning. Justice John M. Harlan also penned a dissent of his own which said, in part, these are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character. I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will in that event pass from the era of constitutional liberty, guarded and protected by a written Constitution, into an era of legislative absolutism.

[Holly Fry]

Together, these 1901 cases establish the idea that Puerto Rico, Hawaii, the Philippines, Samoa, and Guam were part of the United States in some ways, but not others, and could stay that way indefinitely. Cases that followed later in the early 20th century also outlined limits on the constitutional rights of people living in these territories. As we said earlier, some scholars consider these later cases to be part of the insular cases, and some do not. As a few examples, Dorr versus United States, decided in 1904, looked at the question of whether residents of the Philippines had the right to a trial by jury. The right to a jury trial is outlined in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, but the court ruled that it would only apply in the Philippines if Congress enacted legislation to establish that right.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

Hawaii vs. Mankichee was similar, finding that the right to a jury trial had not existed in Hawaii in the window between when the US Annexed it and when Congress passed an act to provide a government for the territory of Hawaii in 1900. This act bestowed U.S. citizenship on the people who had been citizens of the Republic of Hawaii as of August 12, 1898. So once people in Hawaii were considered to be U.S. citizens, they were entitled to a trial by jury. But when Hawaii was a U.S. territory whose residents were not citizens, they were not entitled to a jury trial.

[Holly Fry]

Gonzalez vs. Williams was decided in 1904. Although Puerto Ricans were not considered U.S. citizens at that time, they were supposed to be able to travel freely to the United States. Isabella Gonzalez had tried to join her fiance in New York, but was turned away at port. She was pregnant, and authorities described her as an alien who was likely to become a public charge. The Court found that she was not an alien and should not have been denied entry into New York, but also did not find that she was a citizen. This case is sometimes cited as a factor in Puerto Ricans ultimately being given citizenship as part of the Jones Shafroth act in 1917.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

When I got to this part, I was like, I kind of wish I had done a whole episode on this one case, which might happen at some point in the future. We still could. One of the last cases that is sometimes grouped together with the insular cases was Balzac versus Puerto Rico, decided in 1922. This was a case in which Jesus M. Balzac, editor of a Puerto Rican daily newspaper, had been charged with libel. So this case was connected to the rights of free speech, freedom of the press and trial by jury, which are all considered basic constitutional rights in the United States. The Court found that Puerto Rico had not been incorporated into the United States States and that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial did not apply, and that Balzac's published work was not protected by the rights to free speech or a free press.

[Holly Fry]

There are a lot of contradictions among these cases and sometimes within the cases themselves. As we said earlier, many were decided five to four, and often those five Justices agreed on the outcome, but not on the reasoning behind it. But together they established what's known as the incorporation doctrine. They outlined differences between incorporated and unincorporated territories and set the stage for the United States to be able to claim unincorporated territories in perpetuity without allowing them to enter the Union as states or de annexing them. While the U.S. constitution established the nation as a representative democracy, the insular cases set aside several territories, territories that were inhabited primarily by Hispanic and indigenous people as not entitled to full participation or representation in that democracy.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

While as we said earlier, these cases still stand, there have of course, been some shifts in details over the last century. The Philippines became independent from the United States in 1946 after being occupied by Japan during World War II. Japan had actually declared the Philippines independent in 1943, sort of trying to get the support of Filipinos during this occupation. As we said earlier, the people of Puerto Rico were granted statutory citizenship in 1917, and in 1950, Public Law 600 authorized the people of Puerto Rico to draft their own constitution. So Puerto Rico today is considered to be self governing.

[Holly Fry]

Hawaii became a state in 1959, a process that took more than 50 years, due in part to racist attitudes against the archipelago's native Hawaiian and Asian residents. While voters in Hawaii overwhelmingly ratified its statehood. Many native Hawaiians have pushed instead for Hawaiian independence and sovereignty. Residents of Guam gained US citizenship under the Guam Organic act of 1950 after having been essentially abandoned by the United States and left to a horrific occupation by Japan during World War II. Today, American Samoans are considered U. S Nationals, but not U. S. Citizens.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

You could say this of all of these places, but the United States has definitely been most focused on them when it has been like the most within U S Interests to do so. So like there's the most focus on the well being of Guam when there's a like strategic military reason to do so for some reason. And like this abandonment of Guam during World War II is kind of the U.S. to basically just like cut its losses. We mentioned the Northern Mariana Islands and the US Virgin Islands at the top of the show. They have not come up again because they were not U.S. territories when the first insular cases were decided. The U.S. purchased the U.S. virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917. The Northern Mariana Islands became a U.S. territory in 1975 even though neither was a U.S. territory when the original insular cases were being argued and decided. They're both considered unincorporated territories following the same model that the insular cases established. The US Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Guam are all on the United nations list of non self governing territories.

[Holly Fry]

Broadly speaking, people living in these territories are considered to be entitled to fundamental constitutional rights, but not necessarily to others. And opinions can also differ on which rights should be considered fundamental. The unincorporated territories are not represented by the Electoral College in presidential elections. They are represented by one delegate each in the House of Representatives who can serve on committees and can introduce legislation, but cannot vote.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

There are actually six total non voting members of the House. The sixth one represents Washington D.C. so as is the case with the unincorporated territories, residents of Washington D.C. don't have the same representation in Congress as people who live in one of the states do. A key difference here though is that the Constitution itself outlines the creation of a district to serve as the seat of the government. Washington D.C. did not come about because the Supreme Court kind of made up a justification to do so.

[Holly Fry]

At this point, there's near unanimous agreement among historians and constitutional law scholars that the insular cases are rooted in racism and colonialism. But there's less agreement about what the outcome would be if these cases were overturned and whether that outcome would ultimately be positive for people who would be affected. And in more recent years, there have been some attempts to use these decisions to try to protect the rights of people who are living in these territories. For example, in the US it would be considered unconstitutional to pass laws tying property ownership to race. Theoretically, since the unincorporated territories don't have full constitutional protection, it would be possible to pass laws giving these islands indigenous peoples preference in terms of land ownership based on their race, which could help protect their connections to their ancestral homelands and their traditional ways of life. Having worked on this show for a decade, Tracy notes that she's not really optimistic about this working out. I would agree with that. And she also read a lot of arguments that basically kind of sum this up to no matter what good end you try to put them to, these decisions are still racist and should still be overturned.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

Yeah, and to be very clear, the only reason I said there is near unanimous agreement instead of just unanimous agreement is because I know if we say unanimous, we're going to get an article somebody sends to us that's like, here's the one outlier who claims this was not about racism. There have also been a number of Supreme Court cases in more recent years that have continued to uphold elements of the insular cases and to outline ways in which people living in these territories can be treated differently from people in the 50 states or Washington, D.C. except in the context of congressional representation. We're talking about Washington, D.C. so, for example, the US versus Vallejo Madero was decided in 2022. Vallejo Madero was a Puerto Rican living in New York who had been receiving Supplemental Security Income payments. That's what we colloquially called Social Security or disability payments. He moved to Puerto Rico, making him no longer eligible to receive these payments. And the government did not realize he had moved and kept sending the payments. When they realized what had happened, the government sued to try to recoup that money. The argument in this case was that excluding Puerto Ricans from the program violated the Constitution's due process clause in the Fifth Amendment.

[Holly Fry]

In an 8 to 1 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the Constitution did not require supplemental Supplemental Security Income payments for people in Puerto Rico. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a scathing concurrence, agreeing with the majority opinion, but also arguing stridently against the insular cases. He wrote, quote, flaws in the insular cases are as fundamental as they are shameful. Nothing in the Constitution speaks of incorporated and unincorporated territories. Nothing in it extends to the latter, only certain supposedly fundamental constitutional guarantees. Nothing in it authorizes judges to engage in the sordid business of segregating territories and the people who live in them on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion. The insular cases can claim support in academic work of the period, ugly racial stereotypes and the theories of social Darwinists, but they have no home in our Constitution or its original understanding.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

The case that the Supreme Court declined to hear last year was Fitnessimanu versus United States that was brought by three American Samoans living in Utah. They argued that the 14th amendment's birthright citizenship clause should apply to the people of American Samoa. While American Samoans who move to the United States can apply for citizenship, they're not guaranteed citizenship. They are also denied various rights like voting and running for office until they become citizens if those applications are successful.

[Holly Fry]

As we said at the top of the show, people in American Samoa have varying opinions on these issues. In this case, the government of American Samoa and Congresswoman Almua Amada, who represents American Samoa, submitted a brief opposing this idea. It read in part, quote, the citizenship clause does not require imposing birthright citizenship on the people of American Samoa over the objection of their elected representatives and government and in violation of their basic right to self determination. This brief stressed the importance of Fa', asamoa, or the Samoan culture and way of life, arguing that fa? A Samoa is fundamentally important to the Samoan people and that imposing birthright citizenship on American Samoa would undermine it. The Samoan Federation of America, which supports and advocates for Samoan Americans living in the United States, was one of the organizations that submitted a brief supporting the petitioners.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

Yeah, so as we said earlier, people are not a monolith. There are varying opinions on this. There were more briefs submitted in support of applying birthright citizenship to American Samoa, but also a lot of people currently living in American Samoa who were like, that's not what we want though. A lot of these things are complicated and we have not gotten into it here. But like these distinctions and which rights apply and which don't, like, a lot of them just trickle down to all kinds of things about people's everyday lives. A lot of these places have disproportionately higher participation in military service. So there are a lot of military veterans. But you know, military veterans then returning to these places aren't able to do things like vote for president afterward. And in some cases the veterans services in their local areas are abysmal. Not good. Yeah, I was reading one thing about people from Guam needing particular veteran services and having to go to Hawaii to get them, which is like 4,000 miles away. Thanks so much for joining us on this Saturday. If you'd like to send us a note, our email address is history podcastheartradio.com and you can subscribe to the show on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite show. T Mobile has the Best Plan on the Best Network Just ask Kevin Bacon. Today, business happens virtually everywhere. That's why you need Super Mobile from T Mobile the best plan on the Best Network letting you run your business from your phone like never before. In moments of high demand, T Mobile's

[T Mobile Advertiser]

network adapts to put your business connection first.

[Public Investing Advertiser]

Discover [e-mail] best business plan based on

[T Mobile Advertiser]

combination of advanced network performance, coverage and security features. Best Network based on analysis by Oogler Speed Test Intelligence Data 185 Ooglook Trademark User License and reprinted with permission.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

Brought to you in part by Vital Farms I love eggs. I turn to them all the time as a quick and easy way to start a meal. And Vital Farms eggs are brought to you by hens that have access to fresh air and sunshine, and you can actually look up on the carton and see the farm that those eggs came from. Vital Farms is also a certified bee corporation with a purpose to improve the lives of people, animals and the planet through food. Look for the black EG in the egg aisle and visit vitalfarms.com to learn more. Vital Good Eggs no Shortcuts Wouldn't it

[Holly Fry]

be great to never buy gas again? EVs are as easy to charge as your phone, and they are a perfect addition to your everyday life. Most people are only driving about 40 miles a day, and most EVs can handle 200 to 400 miles of range on a charge. And there are hundreds of EV models available today, so there's something perfect for every lifestyle and budget. I drive an ev. I've had it for a couple of years. It's my favorite car I've ever owned. It is so fun to drive. The pickup is incredible, it's super agile and it is easy to maintain. The way forward is electric. Learn [e-mail] at CVS, it matters that

[Apple Card Advertiser]

we're not just in your community, but that we're part of it. It matters that we're here for you when you need us, day or night, and we want everyone to feel welcome and rewarded. It matters that CVS is here to fill your prescriptions and here to fill your craving for a tasty and yeah, healthy snack. At cvs, we're proud to serve your community because we believe where you get your medicine matters. So Visit [e-mail] or just come by our store. We can't wait to meet you. Store hours vary by location.

[Tracy V. Wilson]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[Apple Card Advertiser]

Guaranteed Human.