U.S. Justice Department Justice Manual, 1-21.100, July 2024

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,” and “indefensible and discredited,” and that they invoke “racist stereotypes” that are “indefensible and repugnant.” 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.

Letter from U.S. Justice Department to Congress, May 30, 2024

  • “The Department unequivocally condemns the racist rhetoric and reasoning of the Insular Cases,” calling them “irreconcilable with foundational American principles of equality, justice, and democracy.” It “emphatically agree[d] … that the racist language and logic of the Insular Cases deserve no place in our law.”
  • DOJ further announced a commitment to “not rely on or seek to extend the doctrine of territorial incorporation established by the Insular Cases,” instructing its litigators to “not rely on the racist rhetoric and reasoning of the Insular Cases.”

Calls on the Department of Justice and President Biden to Reject Insular Cases

Calls for Congress to Reject the Insular Cases

Resolutions in Support of Condemning the Insular Cases

Reports and Scholarship

Selected Briefs to U.S. Supreme Court Calling to Overrule Insular Cases

Fitisemanu v. United States

United States v. Vaello Madero

FOMB v. Aurelius Investment LLC

Tuaua v. United States

Media Coverage