United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Committee on Natural 

Resources, Subcommittee on Insular 

Affairs, House of Representatives

AMERICAN SAMOA 

Issues Associated with 

Some Federal Court 

Options 

Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director 

Homeland Security and Justice Team

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST 

Thursday, September 18, 2008 

 

GAO-08-1124T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2008

AMERICAN SAMOA

Issues Associated with Some Federal Court Options

Highlights of GAO-08-1124T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Insular 

Affairs, Committee on Natural Resources, 

House of Representatives

American Samoa is the only 

populated U.S. insular area that 

does not have a federal court. 

Congress has granted the local 

High Court federal jurisdiction for 

certain federal matters, such as

specific areas of maritime law. 

GAO was asked to conduct a study 

of American Samoa’s system for 

addressing matters of federal law.

This testimony discusses: (1) the

current system for adjudicating

matters of federal law in American

Samoa and how it compares to 

those in the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI),

Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

(USVI); (2) the reasons offered for 

or against changing the current 

system for adjudicating matters of 

federal law in American Samoa;

(3) potential scenarios and issues

associated with establishing a 

federal court in American Samoa or 

expanding the federal jurisdiction 

of the local court; and (4) the 

potential cost elements and funding

sources associated with 

implementing those different 

scenarios. This testimony is based 

on GAO work performed from 

April 2007 to June 2008. 

What GAO Recommends

This testimony contains no

recommendations, but rather is

focused on providing decision 

makers with further details on

various scenarios for potentially

changing the current system of

adjudicating matters of federal law 

in American Samoa. 

Because American Samoa does not have a federal court like the CNMI, Guam, 

or USVI, matters of federal law arising in American Samoa have generally

been adjudicated in U.S. district courts in Hawaii or the District of Columbia. 

Reasons offered for changing the existing system focus primarily on the 

difficulties of adjudicating matters of federal law arising in American Samoa, 

principally based on American Samoa’s remote location, and the desire to 

provide American Samoans more direct access to justice. Reasons offered 

against any changes focus primarily on concerns about the effects of an 

increased federal presence on Samoan culture and traditions and concerns 

about juries’ impartiality given close family ties. During the mid-1990s, several 

proposals were studied and many of the issues discussed then, such as the 

protection of local culture, were also raised during the GAO study. 

 

Based on previous studies and information gathered for its June 2008 report, 

GAO identified three potential scenarios, if changes were to be made: (1) 

establish a federal court in American Samoa under Article IV of the U.S. 

Constitution, (2) establish a district court in American Samoa as a division of 

the District of Hawaii, or (3) expand the federal jurisdiction of the High Court 

of American Samoa. Each scenario would present unique issues to be 

addressed, such as what jurisdiction to grant the court. 

The potential cost elements for establishing a federal court in American 

Samoa include agency rental costs, personnel costs, and operational costs, 

most of which would be funded by congressional appropriations. Exact 

details of the costs to be incurred would have to be determined when, and if,

any of the scenarios were adopted. The controversy surrounding whether and 

how to create a venue for adjudicating matters of federal law in American 

Samoa is not principally focused on an analysis of cost effectiveness, but 

other policy considerations, such as equity, justice, and cultural preservation.

 

Map Showing the Locations of American Samoa, CNMI, Guam, and USVI 

Source: GAO, Map Resources (map art). 

Guam

Northern Mariana Islands Hawaii

American Samoa

CHINA

JAPAN

FIJI

PACIFIC OCEAN

Washington D. C.

US Virgin Islands

CARRIBEAN

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-1124T. 

For more information, contact William Jenkins

at (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. 
Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss Federal Court Options for 

American Samoa. American Samoa is unique among U.S. insular areas in 

that it does not have a federal court.1

 A U.S. territory since the early 1900s, 

American Samoa has internal self-government under a locally adopted 

Constitution, and the High Court of American Samoa is not part of the U.S. 

federal judicial structure. American Samoa’s local judiciary was initially 

created and administered by the U.S. Navy, but since 1951 has operated 

under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior, who appoints the High 

Court Chief Justice and Associate Justice. 

The issue of establishing a federal court in American Samoa is not new. In 

the mid-1990s, legislative proposals were developed that would have 

included the establishment of a federal court in American Samoa. 

However, these initiatives were not enacted by Congress and were 

controversial among American Samoans. Then, again, in February 2006, 

the Delegate from American Samoa introduced legislation in the U.S. 

Congress to establish a federal court in American Samoa2 and later that 

month, the American Samoa legislature held a public hearing to solicit 

public comments.3

 No congressional actions were taken on the bill and the 

Delegate from American Samoa withdrew the legislation after he and 

others requested a GAO report, which was issued on June 27, 2008.

4

My statement is based on our June 2008 report, which examined the 

unique judicial structure of American Samoa and identified the issues 

associated with establishing a federal court in American Samoa. 

Specifically, we discussed (1) the current system and structure for 

 1

 For purposes of this testimony, we discuss four insular areas—American Samoa, the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which 

are all jurisdictions under U.S. sovereignty. In this testimony, we sometimes refer to 

American Samoa as a U.S. territory, although there has not been enacted an organic act, 

which would define its relationship to the United States. 

2

 H.R. 4711, 109th Cong. (2006). 

3

 Legislature of American Samoa, Report and Record of the Joint Legislative Public Hearing

on the Issues of Federal District Court Authorization Transfer of Constitution Review

Authority (Pago Pago, American Samoa: Feb. 23-24, 2006). These hearings were conducted 

in the Samoan language and translated into English. 

4

 GAO, American Samoa: Issues Associated with Potential Changes to the Current 

System for Adjudicating Matters of Federal Law, GAO-08-655 (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 

2008). 

Page 1 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
adjudicating matters of federal law arising in American Samoa and how it

compares to those in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

(CNMI), Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI); (2) the reasons that 

have been offered for or against changing the current system and structure 

for adjudicating matters of federal law in American Samoa; (3) different 

scenarios for establishing a federal court in American Samoa or expanding

the federal jurisdiction of the High Court of American Samoa if a change to

the current system were made, and the identification of issues associated 

with each scenario; and, (4) the potential cost elements and funding 

sources associated with implementing the different scenarios for 

establishing a federal court in American Samoa.

We conducted our prior performance audit from April 2007 to June 2008 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

In contrast to other insular areas of the United States, such as CNMI, 

Guam, and USVI, which have their own federal courts, American Samoa 

does not have a federal court; rather, the High Court of American Samoa 

has been granted limited federal jurisdiction for certain issues, such as 

food safety, protection of animals, conservation, and shipping issues. 

Because of the limits to the High Court’s federal jurisdiction, other matters 

of federal law arising in American Samoa—principally criminal cases—

have been adjudicated in U.S. district courts, mainly in Hawaii or the 

District of Columbia. Since a 2001 precedent-setting case involving human

trafficking, federal prosecutors have initiated criminal proceedings in the

U.S. District Court of Hawaii, in addition to past practices of handling 

matters only in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. With 

regard to federal civil cases, in certain circumstances, such as when both 

the plaintiff and the defendant reside in American Samoa and the events 

giving rise to the civil action occurred in American Samoa, there is no 

federal court with jurisdiction to handle such matters. 

Summary 

Reasons offered for changing the existing system focus primarily on the 

difficulties of adjudicating matters of federal law arising in American 

Samoa, such as logistical challenges related to American Samoa’s remote 

location, along with the goal of providing residents with more direct 

access to justice in their place of residence, while reasons offered against 

Page 2 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
changing the current system of adjudicating matters of federal law focus 

largely on concerns about the impact of an increased federal presence on 

Samoan culture and traditions, as well as concerns regarding the 

impartiality of local juries given close family ties. During the mid-1990s, 

several proposals for changing the current system for adjudicating matters 

of federal law were studied and many of the issues discussed at that time, 

such as protecting local culture and traditions, were also raised during our 

study. 

Based on these prior studies and information gathered for our June 2008 

report, we identified three principal scenarios for change, if a change to 

the current system were made: (1) establishing a district court in American 

Samoa pursuant to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution,5

 (2) establishing a 

district court in American Samoa that would be a division of the District of 

Hawaii, or (3) expanding the federal jurisdiction of the High Court of 

American Samoa. Key issues associated with implementing any of these 

scenarios include the need for enacting a statutory change and 

overcoming operational challenges, such as what jurisdiction to grant the 

court and what type of courthouse and detention facility would need to be 

built under each scenario. 

The potential cost elements for establishing a federal court in American 

Samoa under the first two scenarios include court construction and 

agency rental costs, as well as personnel and operational costs for judicial 

and executive branch staff, most of which would be funded by direct 

appropriations to each federal agency. However, the estimated cost 

elements for these two scenarios are based on assumptions that could 

change in actual implementation and the exact details of the jurisdiction, 

staffing, and physical facilities would have to be determined if, and when, 

any of the scenarios were adopted. Therefore, the cost elements presented 

cannot be used for budget purposes and an analysis of cost effectiveness 

for individual scenarios would be of limited value given the data 

limitations. Regarding the third scenario, we did not collect cost data 

because the granting of federal criminal jurisdiction and expanded federal

 5

 The district courts in U.S. insular areas are Article IV courts, as they were established 

pursuant to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that “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....” Because Article I of the U.S. 

Constitution provides that Congress has power “to constitute tribunals inferior to the

Supreme Court,” and because many tribunals established by Congress were created 

pursuant to Article I, district courts in U.S. insular areas are also sometimes called Article I

courts. 

Page 3 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
civil jurisdiction to the local High Court would be a unique judicial 

arrangement, and there is no existing federal structure upon which federal 

agencies could base cost estimates. 

American Samoa, the only U.S. insular area in the southern hemisphere, is 

located about 2,600 miles southwest of Hawaii. American Samoa consists 

of five volcanic islands and two coral atolls, covering a land area of 76

square miles, slightly larger than Washington, D.C. According to American 

Samoa Department of Commerce data, in 2005, the population of 

American Samoa was about 65,500.6

 Unlike residents born in CNMI, Guam, 

and USVI, residents born in American Samoa are nationals of the United 

States, but many become naturalized U.S. citizens.7

 Like residents of the 

other insular areas, residents of American Samoa have many of the rights

of citizens of the 50 states, but cannot vote in U.S. national elections and 

do not have voting representation in the final approval of legislation by the 

full Congress. According to Census Bureau data for 2000, the median 

household income in American Samoa was $18,200, less than half of the 

U.S. median household income of almost $41,000. 

Background 

American Samoa does not have an organic act that formally establishes its 

relationship with the United States. Two deeds of cession were initially 

completed between Samoan chiefs, or matai, and the United States in 

1900 and 19048

 and ratified by the federal government in 1929.

9

 In these 

deeds, the United States pledged to promote peace and welfare, to 

establish a good and sound government, and to preserve the rights and 

 6

 This estimate includes U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and foreigners. Neither the U.S. 

Census Bureau nor the American Samoa Department of Commerce provides data on the 

number of all U.S. citizens in American Samoa. In 2000, U.S. Census Bureau data indicated 

that about 32,470 of the total population of 57,291 were born in American Samoa, and thus 

U.S. nationals. However, the Census Bureau data do not report the number of U.S.

nationals who have become U.S. citizens. 

7

A U.S. national is either a citizen or someone who “owes permanent allegiance to the

United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(21), (22). Citizenship is derived either from the 

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution (“All persons born or naturalized in the United 

States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”) or from a

specific statute that confers citizenship on the inhabitants of an area that, although not a

state, is under the sovereignty of the United States. No such legislation conferring 

citizenship has been enacted for American Samoa. 

8

 Samoan matai signed the Cession of Tutuila and Aunu’u in 1900 and the Cession of 

Manu’a Islands in 1904. Later, in 1925, the U.S. acquired Swain’s Island. 43 Stat. 1357 (1925). 

9

 45 Stat. 1253 (1929) (codified at 48 U.S.C. § 1661). 

Page 4 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
property of the people. The U.S. Navy was initially responsible for federal 

governance of the territory. Then, in 1951, federal governance was 

transferred to the Secretary of the Interior, which continues today. The 

Secretary exercises broad powers with regard to American Samoa, 

including “all civil, judicial, and military powers” of government in 

American Samoa.10 American Samoa has had its own constitution since 

1960, and since 1983, the local American Samoa constitution may only be 

amended by an act of Congress.11

The American Samoa Constitution provides for three separate branches of 

government—the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Since 1977, a 

popularly elected Governor heads the American Samoa executive branch

for 4-year terms.12 Nearly 40 American Samoa departments, offices, and 

other entities within the executive branch of the American Samoa 

government provide public safety, public works, education, health, 

commerce, and other services. The Governor has responsibility for 

appointing the Attorney General, Director of Public Safety, and other 

executive branch agency leaders. The legislature, or Fono, is comprised of 

18 senators and 20 representatives. Each of the senators is elected in 

accordance with Samoan custom by the city councils of the counties that 

the senator represents. Each of the representatives is popularly elected 

from the representative districts. American Samoa exercises authority 

over its immigration system through its own locally adopted laws. In fiscal 

year 2007, a total of almost $105 million in federal funds were provided 

from a variety of federal agencies, including the Departments of the 

Interior, Education, Agriculture, Transportation, and Health and Human 

Services. Specifically, DOI provided funds that same year in the amount of 

$22.9 million for American Samoa government operations, including the 

High Court of American Samoa. In addition to these federal funds, a 

portion of the funding for American Samoa government operations comes 

from local revenues. 

American Samoa Judiciary The American Samoa judiciary, as provided in the American Samoa 

Constitution and American Samoa Code, consists of a High Court and a 

 10 48 U.S.C. § 1661(c); Exec. Order No. 10,264, 16 Fed. Reg. 6419 (1951). 

11 48 U.S.C. § 1662a. 

12 The Governor may serve two consecutive 4-year terms but is only eligible for a third term 

after one full term has intervened. Am. Samoa Code Ann. § 4.0107. 

Page 5 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
local district court under the administration and supervision of the Chief 

Justice.13 The High Court consists of four divisions—the trial division; the 

family, drug, and alcohol division; the land and titles division; and the 

appellate division.14 The trial division, which consists of the Chief Justice, 

the Associate Justice, and associate judges, is a court of general 

jurisdiction, empowered to hear, among other things, felony cases and 

civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000. The Chief 

Justice and the Associate Justice are appointed by the U.S. Secretary of 

the Interior and are required to be trained in the law. There are six 

associate judges, who are appointed by the Governor and are not required 

to have formal legal training. The associate judges are matai, or chiefs, 

and they preside over cases in the High Court, playing a more significant 

role in deciding issues of matai titles and land. There is one local district 

court judge, who is appointed by the Governor and must also have formal 

legal training, who hears matters, such as misdemeanor criminal offenses 

and civil cases in which the matter in controversy does not exceed 

$5,000.15 The Chief and Associate Justices, and the local district and 

associate judges hold office for life with good behavior.16 The American 

Samoa judiciary has a public defender, probation officers, translators, and 

marshals. Since the 1970s the Secretary of the Interior has appointed 

federal judges, usually from the Ninth Circuit, to serve temporarily as 

Acting Associate Justices in the appellate division of the High Court of 

American Samoa.17

American Samoan 

Customs and Traditions 

American Samoan customs and traditions have an influence over the local 

legal system. The distinctive Samoan way of life, or fa’a Samoa, is deeply

imbedded in traditional American Samoa history and culture. Fa’a Samoa

 13 Am. Samoa Const. art. III; Am. Samoa Code Ann. tit. 3.

14 In 2006, the High Court of American Samoa had a total of 607 cases filed, which included 

162 criminal cases, 112 civil actions, 15 appellate cases, 11 matai (chief) title cases, and 27 

land cases. The family, drug, and alcohol division had a total of 21 cases. 

15 In 2006, the district court of American Samoa had a total of 7,689 cases filed. 

16 The Chief Justice and Associate Justice may be removed by the Secretary of the Interior 

for cause. The district and associate judges may be removed by the Chief Justice for cause. 

17 See Am. Samoa Const. art. III, § 3; Am. Samoa Code Ann. § 3.0220. Three justices and two 

associate judges are needed for an appellate division session. According to a judicial 

official, since at least one of the justices has been involved with the lower court trial that

justice cannot sit on the appeals. Therefore, federal judges travel to American Samoa to sit 

on appellate division sessions, which are held about once a year. 

Page 6 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
is organized around the concept of extended family groups—people 

related by blood, marriage, or adoption—or aiga. Family members 

acknowledge allegiance to the island leader hierarchy comprised of family 

leaders, or matai (chiefs). Matai are responsible for the welfare of their 

respective aiga and play a central role in protecting and allocating family 

lands. About 90 percent of land in American Samoa is communally owned 

and controlled by matai, and there are limits in American Samoa law 

regarding the transfer of property.18 The concept of fa’a Samoa extends to 

the governance structures in American Samoa and, thus, most highranking government officials, including judges, are matai. Further, 

Samoan law allows for a custom of ifoga, or ceremonial apology, whereby 

if a member of one family commits an offense against a member of 

another family, the family of the offender proceeds to the headquarters of

the family of the offended person and asks for forgiveness. After 

appropriate confession of guilt and ceremonial contrition by the offending

family, the family offended against can forgive the offense. If the offender

is convicted in court, the court may reduce the sentence of the offender if 

it finds that an ifoga was performed. 

Past Proposals to Establish 

a Federal Court in 

American Samoa 

The issue of establishing a federal court in American Samoa is not new. 

This issue has arisen within the larger question of defining the political 

status of American Samoa and its relationship with the United States. For

example, in the 1930s, Congress considered legislation that would provide

an avenue of appeal from the High Court of American Samoa to the U.S. 

District Court of Hawaii, during its deliberation of an organic act for 

American Samoa. However, this initiative was not enacted by Congress. 

Further, since 1969, there have been three American Samoa commissions 

convened to study the future political status of American Samoa. These 

commissions have studied, among other things, the necessity of an organic

 18 The primary categories of land in American Samoa are freehold land, individually owned 

native land, and family-owned communal land. Freehold land, or lands included in court

grants prior to 1900, may be alienated to a person who has less than one-half native blood. 

However, individually owned land and communal land, which is theoretically under the 

control of the matai (or chiefs), may be alienated only to persons with more than one-half

native blood, and such land may be alienated to a person with any nonnative blood only if 

the person (1) was born in American Samoa, (2) is a descendent of a Samoan family, (3) 

lives with Samoans as a Samoan, (4) has lived in American Samoa for more than 5 years, 

and (5) has officially declared an intention to remain in American Samoa for life. The 

alienation of communal land also requires the consent of the Governor. Am. Samoa Code

Ann. § 37.0204. 

Page 7 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
act.19 The most recent commission’s report, published in January 2007, did

not recommend any changes in American Samoa’s political status as an 

unorganized and unincorporated territory of the United States, with the 

intent that American Samoa could continue to be a part of the United 

States and also have the freedom to preserve Samoan culture.20 In addition, 

in the mid-1990s, the Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed legislative 

options for changing the judicial structure of American Samoa, including

establishing a federal court within the territory. These proposals were 

developed in response to growing concerns involving white-collar crime in 

American Samoa, which were detailed in a December 1994 DOJ crime 

assessment report.21 However, while the House Committee on Resources 

held hearings on the DOJ report in August 1995, and judicial committees 

studied various legislative options, Congress did not take any actions on

the proposals. Then, in February 2006, the Delegate from American Samoa 

introduced legislation in the U.S. Congress to establish a federal court in 

American Samoa and later that month, the American Samoa Fono held a 

joint legislative public hearing to solicit public comments on the bill.22 No 

congressional actions were taken on the bill and the Delegate from 

American Samoa withdrew the legislation after he and others requested 

the June 2008 GAO report. 

 19 There have been three political status study commissions created in American Samoa to 

study alternative forms of future political status open to American Samoa. The first 

commission report was completed in 1970 and submitted to the American Samoa 

Legislature; the second report was published by the Office of the Delegate at Large to

Washington D.C. in 1975; and the third report was published in January 2007 and presented 

to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. 

20 Final Report, The Future Political Status Study Commission of American Samoa (Jan.

2, 2007). An unorganized territory is one for which the federal government has not provided 

self-government by enacting an organic act or mutual agreement, such as a covenant. An 

unincorporated territory is one that has not become fully incorporated into the United 

States. 

21 American Samoa White Collar Crime Assessment, a Special Report to the U.S.

Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Justice and American Samoa Government

(December 1994, redacted version). 

22 H.R. 4711,109th Cong. (2006). 

Page 8 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
The federal courts in the insular areas of CNMI, Guam, and USVI were 

established under Article IV of the Constitution, whereas U.S. district 

courts elsewhere in the United States were established under Article III of

the Constitution.23 Article IV courts are similar to Article III courts, but 

differ in terms of specific jurisdiction and tenure of the judges. Article IV 

courts generally exercise the same jurisdiction as Article III courts and 

may also exercise jurisdiction over local matters. Article IV judges are 

appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, 

serve terms of 10 years, and can be removed by the President for cause. 

Article III judges are appointed by the President, with the advice and 

consent of the Senate, and serve with Article III protections of life tenure 

for good behavior and immunity from reductions in salary. Article IV 

judges hear both federal and bankruptcy cases, whereas Article III courts 

generally have a separate unit to hear bankruptcy cases. An Article III 

judge can be designated by the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals 

or the Chief Justice of the United States to sit on an Article IV court. 

However, an Article IV judge can be designated to sit only as a magistrate 

judge on an Article III court.24

Differences between 

Article IV Courts in Insular 

Areas and Article III 

Courts 

The Federal Courts in 

CNMI, Guam, and USVI 

The federal courts in CNMI, Guam, and USVI were established at different

times, but developed in similar ways. The District Court for the Northern 

Mariana Islands was established in 1977 as specified in the 1975 

agreement, or covenant, between the Northern Mariana Islands and the 

United States.

25 The District Court of Guam was established when the 

 23 Article III of the U.S. Constitution provides that “the judicial power of the United States, 

shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from

time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall 

hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times receive for their services 

a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” 

24 A U.S. magistrate judge is a judicial officer of the district court and is appointed by 

majority vote of the district judges of the court to exercise jurisdiction over matters 

assigned by a statute as well as those delegated by the district judges. A full-time 

magistrate judge serves a term of 8 years. Duties assigned to magistrate judges by district 

court judges vary from court to court. Magistrate judges may handle certain pre-trial and

post trial matters, as well as jury or nonjury civil trials with the consent of the parties and 

misdemeanor trials with the consent of the parties. District judges must preside over cases

involving felony charges. 

25 Pub. L. No. 95-157, 91 Stat. 1265 (1977); Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, Pub. L. No. 

94-241, § 401, 90 Stat. 263 (1976). 

Page 9 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
federal government passed an Organic Act for Guam in 1950.

26 The District 

Court of the Virgin Islands, as it currently exists, was established by an 

Organic Act in 1936.27 Each of these federal courts initially had jurisdiction 

over federal, as well as local, issues. Over time, however, the federal 

courts were divested of jurisdiction over local issues, with the exception 

of the District Court of the Virgin Islands, which maintains jurisdiction 

over cases involving local offenses that have the same underlying facts as 

federal offenses.28 Similarly, each of the federal courts had appellate 

jurisdiction over the local trial courts until the local government 

established a local appellate court. CNMI, Guam, and USVI have all 

established local Supreme Courts, so that the federal courts no longer 

have appellate jurisdiction over local cases. As such, the jurisdiction of 

each of the three federal courts currently resembles that of district courts 

of the United States, which include federal question jurisdiction, diversity 

jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court.29 Decisions of the 

District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands and the District Court of 

Guam may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 

and decisions of the District Court of the Virgin Islands may be appealed 

to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. An Article IV judge—two 

Article IV judges in the case of the Virgin Islands—sits on each of the 

federal courts and is appointed by the President with the advice and

 26 Pub. L. No. 630, 64 Stat. 384 (1950). 

27 Pub. L. No. 749, §§ 28, 29, 49 Stat. 1807, 1814 (1936). 

28 Federal law provides that the district court has concurrent jurisdiction with the local 

courts over local offenses that are “of the same or similar character or part of, or based on, 

the same act or transaction or two or more acts or transactions connected together or 

constituting part of a common scheme or plan, if such act or transaction or acts or 

transactions also constitutes or constitute an offense or offenses against one or more 

statute over which the District Court of the Virgin Islands has jurisdiction....” 48 U.S.C. § 

1612(c). As such, if an individual engages in conduct that violates both federal law and 

local law, that individual may be charged with both the federal and local offense in the

District Court of the Virgin Islands. For example, if an individual, while engaged in the 

trafficking of firearms, kills another person with premeditation, that individual may be

charged in the District Court of the Virgin Islands with both the federal offense of firearms

trafficking and the local offense of murder. 

29 The original jurisdiction of U.S. District Courts is provided in federal law and includes, 

for example, federal question jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over civil cases arising 

under the U.S. Constitution, an act of Congress, or a treaty, and diversity jurisdiction, 

which is jurisdiction over civil cases filed based on the “diversity of citizenship” of the 

litigants, such as between citizens of different states or between U.S. citizens and those of 

another country, in which the matter in controversy has a sum or value that exceeds 

$75,000. 

Page 10 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
consent of the Senate, for a term of 10 years, but may be removed by the 

President for cause. 

Unlike other insular areas, such as CNMI, Guam, and USVI, American 

Samoa does not have a federal court. As a result, federal law enforcement 

officials have pursued violations of federal criminal law arising in 

American Samoa in the U.S. district courts in Hawaii or the District of 

Columbia. In the absence of a federal court in American Samoa, federal

law has provided federal jurisdiction to the High Court of American Samoa 

in areas such as food safety and shipping issues, which is quite narrow 

compared to the comprehensive federal jurisdiction granted to federal 

courts in other insular areas. 

Unlike Other Insular 

Areas, Matters of 

Federal Law in 

American Samoa Are 

Adjudicated in U.S. 

District Courts in 

Hawaii or the District 

of Columbia 

American Samoa’s Local 

Judicial Structure Differs 

from Local Judicial 

Structures in CNMI, Guam, 

and USVI 

With regard to its local judicial structure, American Samoa is different 

from other U.S. insular areas. The judicial system in American Samoa 

consists only of local courts that handle limited federal matters, whereas 

the judicial system in CNMI, Guam, and USVI are composed of local courts 

and federal courts that operate independently from each other. Also, 

whereas the justices of the High Court in American Samoa are appointed 

by the Secretary of the Interior, the judges of the local courts in CNMI, 

Guam, and USVI are appointed by the Governors of each insular area. 

Further, although decisions of the appellate division of the High Court of 

American Samoa have been appealed to the Secretary of the Interior, 

federal law provides that, 15 years after the establishment of a local 

appellate court, decisions of the local appellate courts in CNMI, Guam, 

and USVI may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.30 As stated earlier, 

because there is no federal court in American Samoa, matters of federal 

law arising in American Samoa have generally been adjudicated in either 

the District of Hawaii (Honolulu, Hawaii) or the District of Columbia 

(Washington, D.C.). 

 30 In 2004, 7 years before the expiration of the 15 years after the establishment of the

Supreme Court of Guam, Congress repealed the provision providing the Ninth Circuit with

temporary appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Supreme Court of Guam. Pub. L. No.

108-378, § 2, 118 Stat. 2206, 2208 (2004). 

Page 11 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
With regard to criminal matters, although federal criminal law extends to 

American Samoa, questions surrounding the proper jurisdiction and venue 

of cases have posed complex legal issues when violations of federal law 

occurred solely in American Samoa.31 However, since a 2001 precedentsetting case involving human trafficking,32 DOJ prosecutors told us that 

some of the legal issues regarding jurisdiction and venue that had been 

unsettled in the past have been resolved. For example, federal law 

provides that the proper venue for a criminal case involving a federal 

crime committed outside of a judicial district is: (1) the district in which 

the defendant is arrested or first brought; or (2) if the defendant is not yet 

arrested or first brought to a district, in the judicial district of the 

defendant’s last known residence; or (3) if no such residence is known, in 

the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.33

Federal Criminal Cases 

Arising in American Samoa 

Are Generally Heard in 

Hawaii and the District of 

Columbia 

Prior to this 2001 case, most cases arising in American Samoa were 

brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In this 2001 

case, prosecutors used the “first brought” statute to establish venue in the 

District of Hawaii, since the defendant was arrested and “first brought” to 

Hawaii and then indicted in the District of Hawaii. Based on the facts and

arguments presented, the Ninth Circuit upheld this application of the “first 

brought” statute.34 Following this case, most defendants who have been 

charged with committing federal offenses in American Samoa have been 

charged in one of two venues—the U.S. district courts in Hawaii or the 

District of Columbia, because there is no federal court in American 

Samoa.35 In 2006 and 2007, DOJ attorneys prosecuted defendants in the 

U.S. district courts in both Hawaii and the District of Columbia for civil 

 31 See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2 (“Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall 

have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such 

Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed”). 

32 United States v. Lee, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Haw. 2001). 

33 18 U.S.C. § 3238. With respect to a federal criminal offense committed by an American 

Samoan within one of the federal judicial districts, rather than within American Samoa, 

venue is proper in the judicial district where the crime was committed pursuant to federal 

law.

34 United States v. Lee, 472 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2006). 

35 Although venue for most cases arising in American Samoa has been established pursuant

to the “first brought” statute, venue may otherwise be proper in a district in which part of

the offense was committed. For example, in United States v. Ofoia, eight residents of 

American Samoa were charged in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

with defrauding AFLAC, which is headquartered in Georgia. United States v. Ofoia, No. 

4:03-cr-011 (M.D. Ga. filed Feb. 28, 2003). 

Page 12 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
rights violations and public corruption cases arising in American Samoa.36

DOJ prosecutors told us that their approach is adjusted depending on the 

facts of each case, legal challenges presented, and prosecutorial resources 

available. 

Proper Federal Venue May 

Not Exist for the 

Adjudication of Certain 

Federal Civil and 

Bankruptcy Matters 

With regard to certain federal civil matters, when both the plaintiff and the 

defendant reside in American Samoa, and the events giving rise to the civil 

action occurred in American Samoa, there may be no proper federal 

venue, meaning there may be no federal court that may hear the case.37

However, some civil cases have been brought against the Secretary of the

Department of the Interior (DOI) alleging that the Secretary’s 

administration of the government of American Samoa violated the U.S. 

Constitution.38 In such cases, the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia has been the appropriate forum, given that DOI is headquartered 

in Washington, D.C. 

Bankruptcy relief is not available in American Samoa since federal law has 

not explicitly extended the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to American Samoa, and 

there is not a federal court in American Samoa in which bankruptcy claims 

may be adjudicated.39 However, U.S. bankruptcy courts may exercise 

jurisdiction over petitions for relief filed by American Samoan entities 

under certain circumstances, such as if the entities reside or do business 

in a judicial district of the United States and the court finds that exercising

jurisdiction would be in the best interest of the creditors and the debtors. 

 36 For example, in the District of Hawaii, the Criminal Section of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division 

prosecuted several individuals involved in a sex trafficking operation in American Samoa. 

United States v. Kuo, No. 1:06-cr-524 (D. Haw. filed Oct. 4, 2006); United States v. Kuo, No. 

1:07-cr-225 (D. Haw. filed May 10, 2007). In the District of Columbia, the Public Integrity 

Section of the DOJ’s Criminal Division initiated proceedings against two government

officials in American Samoa, charging, among other things, fraud and bribery. United States

v. Sunia, No. 1:07-cr-225 (D.D.C. filed Sept. 6, 2007). 

37 See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 

38 See, e.g., Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

v. Hodel, 637 F. Supp. 1398 (D.D.C. 1986), aff’d by 830 F.2d 374 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Majhor v. 

Kempthorne, 518 F. Supp. 2d 221 (D.D.C. 2007). 

39 A bankruptcy court is an operating unit of the district court.

Page 13 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
Despite the absence of a federal court in American Samoa, federal law 

provides that the local court—the High Court of American Samoa—has 

limited federal civil jurisdiction. However, the federal jurisdiction of the 

High Court of American Samoa is very limited compared to 

comprehensive federal jurisdiction in federal courts located in CNMI, 

Guam, and USVI. In particular, federal law has explicitly granted the High 

Court of American Samoa federal jurisdiction for certain issues, such as 

food safety, protection of animals, conservation, and shipping issues. 

The Federal Jurisdiction of 

American Samoa’s High 

Court is Very Limited 

Compared to Federal 

Courts in Other Insular 

Areas 

Although the High Court does not keep data on the number of federal 

cases it handles, the Chief Justice of the High Court told us that, on 

occasion, these federal matters, particularly maritime cases,40 have taken a 

significant amount of the court’s time. The Chief Justice noted that the 

piecemeal nature of the High Court’s federal jurisdiction sometimes 

creates challenges. For example, although the High Court has jurisdiction 

to hear certain maritime cases, the High Court does not have the authority 

under certain federal statutes to enjoin federal court proceedings or to 

transfer a case to a federal court. Such a situation may lead to parallel 

litigation in the High Court and a federal court.41

In addition to the limits of federal jurisdiction, there are differences in the 

way federal matters are heard in the High Court compared to the federal 

courts in other insular areas. For example, whereas the Secretary of the 

Interior asserts authority to review High Court decisions under federal 

law, the U.S. Courts of Appeals have appellate review of decisions of the 

federal courts in CNMI, Guam, and USVI. Also, as stated earlier, whereas 

the Justices of the High Court of American Samoa are appointed by the

Secretary of the Interior, the judges of the federal courts in CNMI, Guam, 

and USVI are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of 

the U.S. Senate. 

 40 Maritime law is the body of law governing maritime commerce and navigation, the 

transportation at sea of persons and property, and marine affairs in general. 

41 See 46 U.S.C. § 30511; 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). For example, in a 2003 maritime case, a

plaintiff filed actions based on the same incident in both the U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of California and the High Court of American Samoa. 7 Am. Samoa 3d 139 

(2003). 

Page 14 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
While various proposals to change the current system of adjudicating 

matters of federal law in American Samoa have been periodically 

discussed and studied, controversy remains regarding whether any 

changes are necessary and, if so, what options should be pursued. In the 

mid-1990s, various proposals to change the current system were studied 

by judicial committees and federal officials. Issues that were raised at that

time, such as protecting American Samoan culture and traditions, 

resurfaced during our interviews with federal and American Samoa 

government officials, legal experts, and in group discussions and public 

comments we received. Reasons offered for changing the existing system 

focus primarily on the difficulties of adjudicating matters of federal law 

arising in American Samoa, along with the goal of providing American 

Samoans with more direct access to justice in their place of residence. 

Reasons offered against changing the current system of adjudicating 

matters of federal law focus largely on concerns about the impact of an

increased federal presence on Samoan culture and traditions, as well as 

concerns regarding the impartiality of local juries. 

Proposals for 

Changing the Current 

System of 

Adjudicating Matters 

of Federal Law in 

American Samoa 

Remain Controversial 

Concerns with WhiteCollar Crime Led to 

Discussions in the Mid1990s on Changing the 

System for Adjudicating 

Matters of Federal Law in 

American Samoa 

The issue of changing the system for adjudicating matters of federal law in

American Samoa has been raised in the past in response to a government 

audit and subsequent reports, which cite problems dating back to the 

1980s. These reports cited problems with deteriorating financial 

conditions, poor financial management practices, and vulnerability to 

fraudulent activities in American Samoa.42 In March 1993, the newly 

elected Governor of American Samoa requested assistance from the 

Secretary of the Interior to help investigate white-collar crime in American 

Samoa in response to a projected $60 million deficit uncovered by a DOI 

Inspector General audit.

43 As a result of this request, a team from DOJ 

spent 3 months assessing the problem of white-collar crime in American 

 42 GAO, American Samoa: Inadequate Management and Oversight Contribute to 

Financial Problems, GAO/NSIAD-92-64 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 1992). U.S. Department

of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, American Samoa: Top Leadership Commitment 

Needed to Break the Cycle of Fiscal Crisis, Report No. P-IN-AMS-0117-2003 (Washington,

D.C.: September 2005). 

43 In March 1993, Governor Richard Lutali of American Samoa wrote a letter to the

Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, to request that, pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 1666, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents and a DOJ prosecutor be detailed to the 

American Samoa Government to investigate and prosecute public integrity and other whitecollar crimes. 

Page 15 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
Samoa and completed its report in December 1994.

44 The report concluded

that white-collar crime—in particular, public corruption—was prevalent in 

American Samoa and provided details on the difficulties with enforcing 

federal law in American Samoa. The report discussed three possible 

solutions: (1) establishing a district court in American Samoa, (2) 

providing the U.S. District Court of Hawaii with jurisdiction over certain

matters of federal law arising in American Samoa, or (3) providing the 

High Court of American Samoa with federal criminal jurisdiction. 

By August 1995, the U.S. Congress held hearings on the 1994 DOJ report 

and possible alternatives to provide for the prosecution of federal crimes 

arising in American Samoa. At the hearing, some American Samoa 

government officials opposed suggestions for changing the judicial system

in the territory and views were expressed regarding increased federal 

presence, the desire to retain self-determination over the judicial 

structure, and the need to protect and maintain the matai title and land 

tenure system in American Samoa. The American Samoa Attorney General 

at that time testified that his office and the Department of Public Safety

had created a Joint Task Force on Public Corruption that investigated and 

prosecuted several white-collar offenses, including embezzlement, bribery, 

fraud, public corruption, forgery, and tax violations.

45

For several months following the 1995 congressional hearings, different 

legislative options were studied by judicial committees within Congress 

and federal officials. One bill was drafted that would have given the U.S. 

District Court of Hawaii limited jurisdiction over federal cases arising in 

American Samoa. The bill proposed that one or more magistrate judges 

may sit in American Samoa, but district judges of the U.S. District Court of 

Hawaii would presumably preside over trials in Hawaii. The bill was 

opposed by some federal judicial officials citing an unfair burden that 

would be placed on the District of Hawaii, as well as on defendants, 

witnesses, and juries due, in part, to the logistical difficulties in 

 44 Department of Justice, American Samoa White Collar Crime Assessment: A Special

Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Justice and American 

Samoa Government, (December 1994, redacted version). 

45Statement of A.P. Lutali, Governor of American Samoa, accompanied by Malaetasi M. 

Togafau, Attorney General, and R. Wendell Harwell, Territorial Auditor, before the House 

Resources Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs, Hearing on the U.S.

Department of Justice Assessment on White Collar Crime in American Samoa

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 3, 1995). 

Page 16 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
transporting them between American Samoa and Hawaii.46 By 1996, the 

proposed legislation was revised to establish an Article IV court in 

American Samoa with full staff accompaniments and limited federal 

jurisdiction that would exclude cases that would put into issue the office 

or title of matai and land tenure.47 While DOJ sent the legislation to the 

President of the Senate and Speaker of the House in October 1996, it was 

never introduced into the 104th Congress or in subsequent congressional 

sessions. 

Concerns about Human 

Trafficking and Federal 

Grant-Related Corruption 

Have Heightened Law 

Enforcement Focus on 

American Samoa 

While the mid-1990’s legislative proposals were primarily concerned with 

white-collar crime in American Samoa, different types of criminal 

activities have more recently emerged. Prior to 1999, FBI officials told us

that allegations of criminal activity in American Samoa were investigated

by agents based in its Washington, D.C. field office and, due to the 

distance and costs involved, very few investigations were initiated. Around 

mid-1999, FBI began to assign Hawaii-based agents to investigations in 

American Samoa in response to increasing reports of criminal activity. 

Then, due to growing caseload and a crime assessment, in December 2005,

FBI opened a resident agency in American Samoa. According to an FBI 

official, other than a National Park Service fish and wildlife investigator 

affiliated with the National Park of American Samoa, the FBI agents were 

the first federal law enforcement agents to be stationed in American 

Samoa. FBI’s increased activities over the past 8 years, and establishment 

of a resident agency, have targeted a growing number of crimes in 

American Samoa, including public corruption of high-ranking government 

officials, fraud against the government, civil rights violations, and human 

trafficking. Among the most notable was U.S. v. Lee, which was the largest 

human trafficking case ever prosecuted by DOJ, as reported in 2007.48 This 

2001 case involved about 200 Chinese and Vietnamese victims who were 

 46Pacific Islands Committee of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, Report of the 

Pacific Islands Committee on Federal Jurisdiction in American Samoa (Aug. 23, 1995) 

and Supplemental Report of the Pacific Islands Committee, American Samoa Legislation 

(Dec. 15, 1995). 

47 The jurisdiction was limited to civil and criminal proceedings that were (1) brought by 

the United States or an officer or an agency thereof arising under the laws of the United

States or seeking to collect a debt pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act

of 1990, or (2) designated to transmit requests for international judicial assistance arising 

from foreign judicial proceedings pursuant to treaties or other international agreements to

which the United States is a party and which extend to American Samoa. 

48 See United States v. Lee, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Haw. 2001). 

Page 17 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
held in a garment factory. In 2003, Lee was convicted in the U.S. District 

Court of Hawaii of involuntary servitude, conspiring to violate civil rights, 

extortion, and money laundering. Another federal case in 2006 resulted in

guilty pleas from the prison warden and his associate for conspiring to 

deprive an inmate of rights, by assaulting him and causing him bodily 

injury.49

In December 2004, we found that American Samoa’s failure to complete 

single audits,

50 federal agencies’ slow reactions to this failure, and 

instances of theft and fraud limited accountability for 12 key federal grants 

supporting essential services in American Samoa.51 We recommended, 

among other things, that the Secretary of the Interior coordinate with 

other federal agencies to designate the American Samoa government as a 

high-risk grantee until it completed all delinquent single audits. In June 

2005, DOI designated the American Samoa government as a high-risk 

grantee. The American Samoa government subsequently completed all

overdue audits and made efforts to comply with single audit act 

requirements. Later, in December 2006, we reported that insular area 

governments, including American Samoa, face serious economic, fiscal, 

and financial accountability challenges and that their abilities to 

strengthen their economies were constrained by their lack of 

diversification in industries, scarce natural resources, small domestic 

markets, limited infrastructure, and shortages of skilled labor.52 Again, we 

cited the long-standing financial accountability problems in American 

Samoa, including the late submission of the reports required by the Single 

Audit Act, the inability to achieve unqualified (“clean”) audit opinions on 

financial statements, and numerous material weaknesses in internal 

controls over financial reporting and compliance with laws and 

 49 United States. v. Kelemete, No. 1:06-cr-116 (D. Haw. filed Mar. 1, 2006). 

50 Recipients that expend $500,000 or more a year in federal awards under more than one 

federal program are required by the Single Audit Act to undergo a single audit. Single audits

are audits of the recipient organization—the government in the case of insular areas—that 

focus on the recipient’s internal controls and its compliance with laws and regulations 

governing federal awards. 31 U.S.C. § 7501-7507; Office of Management and Budget Circular 

No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. 

51 GAO, American Samoa: Accountability for Key Federal Grants Needs Improvement, 

GAO-05-41 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 2004).

52 GAO, U.S. Insular Areas: Economic, Fiscal, and Financial Accountability Challenges, 

GAO-07-119 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12, 2006). 

Page 18 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
regulations governing federal grant awards.53 We made several

recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, including increasing 

coordination activities with officials from other federal grant-making 

agencies on issues such as late single audit reports, high-risk designations, 

and deficiencies in financial management systems and practices. DOI 

agreed with our recommendations, but we have not yet assessed its 

progress toward implementing them. 

In addition to these GAO reviews, FBI and various inspector general 

agents have conducted a broad investigation into federal grant-related 

corruption in American Samoa, which yielded guilty pleas in October 2005 

from four former American Samoa government officials, including the 

Director of Procurement, the Director of the Department of Education, the 

Director of the Department of Health and Social Services, and the Director 

of the School Lunch Program. Additionally, recent audits and 

investigations by the Inspector General offices of the Departments of 

Homeland Security, Education, and the Interior indicate that the American 

Samoa government has inadequate controls and oversight over federal 

funds, that federal competitive bidding practices have been circumvented,

and that American Samoan officials have abused federal funds for 

personal benefit. For example, in September 2007, officials from the U.S. 

Department of Education designated the American Samoa government as 

a high-risk grantee due to serious internal control issues raised in previous 

single audits, and cited a number of underlying fiscal and management 

problems. Due to the department’s concerns about the American Samoa 

government’s ability to properly administer and provide services with its 

funds, the department imposed several special conditions, including 

restrictions on the drawdown of grant funds. Also, the American Samoa 

legislature, or Fono, has been assisting federal agencies in their efforts to 

investigate public corruption and other crimes. Specifically, in early 2007,

the Fono established a Senate Select Investigative Committee to review 

and investigate any unlawful, improper, wasteful, or fraudulent operations 

involving local and federal funds or any other misconduct involving 

government operations within all departments, boards, commissions, 

 53 A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or a combination of significant 

deficiencies, that result in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of 

the financial statements will not be prevented or detected. A significant deficiency is a 

control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the 

entity’s ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in 

accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a 

remote likelihood that a misstatement of the entity’s financial statements that is more than

inconsequential will not be prevented or detected. 

Page 19 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
committees, and agencies of the American Samoa government. An official 

stated the committee reviews and investigates complaints, holds senate 

hearings with relevant witnesses, and can refer cases to either the 

American Samoa Attorney General or FBI for investigation and 

prosecution. 

Reasons Offered for 

Changing the Current 

System Focus Principally 

on the Difficulties of 

Adjudicating Matters of 

Federal Law and Greater 

Access to Justice 

As was the case in the 1990s, and was repeated in the interviews we 

conducted and e-mail comments we received, the reasons offered for 

changing the American Samoa judicial system principally stem from 

challenges associated with adjudicating matters of federal law arising in 

American Samoa and the desire to provide American Samoans with 

greater access to justice. Federal law enforcement officials have identified

a number of issues that limit their ability to pursue matters of federal law 

arising in American Samoa. These include logistical challenges related to

American Samoa’s remote location. Proponents of changing the judicial 

system of American Samoa also cite reasons, such as providing American 

Samoans more direct access to justice as in other insular areas, serving as

a possible deterrent to crime, and providing a means to alleviate the 

shame, embarrassment, and costs associated with being taken away to be

tried more than 2,000 miles from American Samoa. While the main areas of 

concern in the mid-1990s and in our discussions were related to criminal 

matters arising in American Samoa, there were also concerns regarding 

civil matters, such as federal debt collection, although these were not 

addressed in much detail. 

Without a federal court in American Samoa, investigators and federal 

prosecutors whom we interviewed said they were limited in their ability to 

conduct investigations and prosecute cases due to logistical obstacles 

related to working in such a remote location. In addition to high travel 

costs, and infrequent flights into and out of American Samoa, DOJ officials 

said they face difficulties involving effective witness preparation and 

difficulties communicating with agents during a small window of time 

each day (due to the 7-hour time difference between Washington, D.C. and 

American Samoa). In some cases, search warrants or wiretaps were not 

used by the prosecutors to the extent that they would have been if 

American Samoa were in closer proximity to Washington, D.C. or 

Logistical Challenges Related 

to American Samoa’s Remote 

Location 

Page 20 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
Honolulu, Hawaii.54 Federal prosecutors told us that far fewer witnesses 

have been called to testify in front of the grand jury, given the burden of 

high travel costs from American Samoa. Federal prosecutors also told us 

that they must rely on witness observations and summaries from federal 

agents stationed in American Samoa rather than meet key witnesses face 

to face before bringing charges or issuing subpoenas, as they would 

typically do. Further, according to DOJ officials, the cost related to 

managing these cases has limited the number of cases they are able to

pursue. Federal law enforcement agents told us that a federal court 

located in American Samoa could bring additional investigative and 

prosecutorial resources so that they would be able to pursue more cases. 

Although some have suggested that judicial and prosecutorial resources 

from the judicial districts of CNMI and Guam be deployed to American 

Samoa, the high travel costs and logistical obstacles would not be any less, 

given that there are no direct flights between American Samoa and Guam 

or between American Samoa and CNMI. 

More Direct Access to 

Federal Court and Parity 

with Other Insular Areas 

Another key reason offered for changing the system for adjudicating 

matters of federal law in American Samoa is that a federal court would 

provide residents with more direct access to justice and the ability to more 

easily pursue cases in the federal court system. Currently, the ability to

adjudicate federal cases exists only in very limited cases through the High

Court, at a significant cost of time and money to travel to U.S. District 

Courts in Hawaii or Washington, D.C.; or not at all, in the case of some 

civil matters and bankruptcy. Proponents state that the establishment of a 

federal court would provide American Samoa parity with other insular 

areas, such as CNMI, Guam, and USVI, which have federal courts. Further, 

a legal expert said that a federal court in American Samoa would provide 

the community with an opportunity to see first hand how parties can come 

together to resolve their differences with regard to federal matters. For 

example, some have asserted that if public corruption trials were held in

American Samoa, they would act as a deterrent to others contemplating 

fraudulent behavior; increase accountability with regard to government 

spending; and provide satisfaction in witnessing wrong doers brought to 

 54 There is also some legal uncertainty about the current ability of federal judges to issue 

search warrants for property in American Samoa because it is outside of a federal judicial 

district. A proposed change to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to be effective in 

December 2008, would authorize a magistrate judge in a district in which activities related 

to the crime under investigation may have occurred or in the District of Columbia to issue a

search warrant for property in American Samoa. 

Page 21 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
justice. Some stated in the February 2006 public hearing held by the Fono55

and in e-mail comments we received that they have felt shame and 

embarrassment when defendants are taken to distant courts and in our 

group discussions, it was stated that American Samoa is perceived by 

others as unable to render justice to its own residents. Further, some 

officials have noted the significant costs that defendants’ families must 

bear in traveling great distances to provide support during trials. This 

burden is exacerbated by the comparatively low family incomes in 

American Samoa, which, as stated earlier, are less than half of the U.S. 

median household income, according to 2000 Census Bureau data. 

Finally, some people we met with stated that the current system of holding 

federal criminal trials outside of American Samoa subjects defendants to 

possible prejudices by jurors in other locations. They cited the relative 

unfamiliarity of the judges and jurors in Washington, D.C. or Honolulu, 

Hawaii regarding American Samoan cultural and political issues and 

suggested that American Samoans would receive a fairer trial in American 

Samoa than in these locations. This issue had also been discussed in the 

mid-1990s. For example, in his testimony during August 1995 

congressional hearings, the then-Governor of American Samoa stated that 

the people of American Samoa have the ability to deliver just verdicts 

based on the evidence presented. He noted that for almost 20 years prior, 

the trial division of the High Court had successfully conducted six-person 

jury trials as evidence that American Samoan customs and family loyalties

had not prevented effective law enforcement.56

Views in support of changing the current system were also reflected in 

some comments made during the group discussions we held in American 

Samoa and in some of the e-mail responses we received. Some members of 

the public expressed discontent over the significant costs associated with

American Samoan defendants and their families having to travel to Hawaii

or Washington, D.C. for court matters and they expressed the importance 

of having a jury of their peers deciding their cases. Other members of the 

public and a local community group expressed their belief that a federal 

Comments from Group 

Discussions and E-mail 

Responses Reflect Some of the 

Same Reasons Offered for 

Changing the Current System 

 55 Legislature of American Samoa, Report and Record of the Joint Legislative Public 

Hearing (Feb. 23-24, 2006). 

56 American Samoa code provides that a person charged with an offense carrying a 

maximum punishment of over 6 months of imprisonment shall be tried by a jury unless he 

personally waives this right in writing or in open court. The law also provides that the petit

jury shall be comprised of six persons, the jury verdict must be unanimous, and voir dire

of prospective jurors shall be conducted by the court. Am. Samoa Code Ann. § 3.0232.

Page 22 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
court in American Samoa may act as a deterrent for the abuse of federal

funds and public corruption, and provide opportunities for American 

Samoans to pursue federal legal matters, such as bankruptcy. While there 

was no consensus opinion, certain members of the local bar association 

mentioned that having a federal court could be beneficial for economic 

development, by attracting qualified attorneys and court staff to American 

Samoa. Additionally, one member stated that a federal court may lighten 

the workload and reduce the backlog of the High Court by taking over its 

federal maritime and admiralty matters. 

Reasons Offered Against 

Changing the Current 

Judicial System Focus 

Principally on Preserving 

the Culture and Traditions 

of American Samoa and 

Concerns about Juries 

One of the key reasons offered against changing the current judicial 

system is the concern that a federal court would impinge upon Samoan 

culture and traditions. The most frequent concerns raised were related 

issues— that the system of matai chiefs and the land tenure system could 

be jeopardized. In raising these issues, some cited the deeds of cession 

which specify that the United States would preserve the rights and 

property of the Samoan people. Further, some law enforcement officials 

we met with also opposed a change to the current system for prosecuting 

federal cases arising in American Samoa because they were concerned 

that, given the close familial ties in American Samoa, it would be difficult

to obtain convictions from local jurors. 

During the February 2006 Fono hearings,57 in e-mail comments we 

received, and in statements by American Samoa government officials we 

interviewed, concerns were voiced that the establishment of a federal

court in American Samoa could jeopardize the matai and land tenure 

system of American Samoa. As noted above, matai hold positions of 

authority in the community; for example, only matai may serve as 

senators in the American Samoa legislature, and matai control the use and 

development of the communal lands and allocate housing to their 

extended family members. The land tenure system of American Samoa is 

such that the majority of the land in American Samoa is communally 

owned, and the sale or exchange of communally owned land is prohibited 

without the consent of the Governor. Also prohibited is the sale or 

exchange of communally owned and individually owned property to 

people with less than one-half Samoan blood.58 American Samoa 

Preservation of Local Culture 

and Traditions 

 57 Legislature of American Samoa, Report and Record of the Joint Legislative Public 

Hearing (Feb. 23-24, 2006). 

58 The ethnic limitations apply to communal lands and individually owned native lands, but

not freehold lands. 

Page 23 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
government officials assert that the land tenure system fosters the strong 

familial and community ties that are the backbone of Samoan culture and 

that limits on the transfer of land are important to preserve the lands of 

American Samoa for Samoans and protect the Samoan culture. 

Currently, cases regarding matai titles and land issues, such as disputes 

over the rightful successor to a matai or land use or improvements, are 

heard by the land and titles division of the High Court of American Samoa. 

This division is composed of the Chief Justice and Associate Justice, as 

well as associate judges, who are appointed based on their knowledge of

Samoan culture and tradition. Pursuant to the federalist structure of the 

U.S. judiciary, if a federal court were established in American Samoa, most 

cases arising under local law, such as matai and land disputes, would 

likely continue to be heard by the local court. However, some American 

Samoa officials stated that they are concerned that if a federal court was 

established in American Samoa, a federal judge, without the requisite 

knowledge of Samoan culture and tradition, would hear land and title 

cases. They stated that they would like to keep matai title and land tenure 

issues within the jurisdiction of the High Court. 

Another concern that was raised by government officials and residents of 

American Samoa is that the presence of a federal court in American Samoa 

may generate constitutional challenges to the matai and land tenure 

system. Though such challenges may currently be brought in existing 

venues, some voiced concerns that the establishment of a federal court in 

American Samoa may make such challenges less costly and, perhaps, more 

likely. 

In general, many residents of American Samoa said they value their culture 

and traditions and think that the matai and land tenure systems in 

American Samoa are critical components of the fa’a Samoa. The following 

quote from the Secretary of Samoan Affairs summarizes the position we 

heard from many during our visit to American Samoa: 

To this day, our native land tenure system remains at the very core of our existence: our

culture, our heritage and our way of life. Without our native land tenure system, our matai

or chieftain system will fade over time—along with our language, our customs and our 

culture....we, as a people, have an overriding desire to keep the fabric of our society (i.e., 

our Samoan culture) intact. No other U.S. state or territory enjoys the total and complete 

Page 24 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
preservation of its people’s culture as American Samoa. I fear that the imposition of a

federal court system in American Samoa may have a destructive impact on our culture.59

Some have raised concerns regarding the establishment of a federal jury 

system, given the potentially small pool of U.S. citizens in American Samoa

and the extended family ties among American Samoans. Federal law 

provides that federal jurors must be U.S. citizens. 60 As discussed earlier, 

American Samoans are U.S. nationals, not U.S. citizens, although they may

apply and become U.S. citizens. Neither the U.S. Census Bureau nor the 

American Samoa Department of Commerce provides data on the number 

of U.S. citizens in American Samoa. Thus, the proportion of the American 

Samoa adult population who are U.S. citizens is unknown. If the number of 

U.S. citizens is fairly small, then the pool from which to select federal 

jurors would be fairly small without a statutory change. In addition, law 

enforcement officials have speculated that extended family ties in 

American Samoa may limit the government’s ability to successfully 

prosecute cases. Specifically, they raised the issue of jury nullification—

the rendering of a not guilty verdict even though the jury believes that the 

defendant committed the offense—as a potential problem that may occur 

if jury trials were held in American Samoa, due to the influence of familial 

ties or other societal pressures on jurors. Federal law enforcement 

officials we met with added that some witnesses involved in testifying 

against others in previous federal criminal cases have relocated outside of

American Samoa and have lost their jobs and housing as a result of their 

participation in cases. These officials stated that they believe that similar 

societal pressures will be imposed on jurors if trials were held in American 

Samoa. These officials concluded that the current system of federal 

criminal trials taking place away from American Samoa is the best way to 

get unbiased juries.61

Concerns about Juries 

 59 Letter from the Secretary of Samoan Affairs, American Samoa Government, to GAO, 

dated October 12, 2007. 

60 28 U.S.C. §§ 1861-1878. 

61 A federal law enforcement official suggested that rather than establishing a federal court

in American Samoa, one option would be to designate the U.S. District Court of Hawaii as

the proper venue for federal cases arising in American Samoa and provide the U.S. District

Court of Hawaii with additional resources to handle such cases. As such, cases arising in 

American Samoa would be heard by district judges and juries in Hawaii. 

Page 25 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
Views expressing opposition to changing the current system were also 

reflected in some comments we received from the group discussions we 

held in American Samoa and from e-mail responses. Some members of the 

public expressed concerns over an increased federal presence in American 

Samoa and the potential legal challenges which could be brought 

regarding the land tenure system and matai title traditions. Further, some 

expressed concerns about non-Samoans filing discrimination lawsuits over 

their inability to own land. Some stated that the current system operates 

well and they did not see a need for change. Others expressed opposition 

to a federal court in American Samoa due to their concerns about 

impartial jurors. They stated that if a federal court were established in 

American Samoa, jurors may not be able to be impartial because of the 

close relations through family, culture, church, government, or business. 

Finally, others expressed concerns about the U.S. government pushing and 

imposing its will on American Samoa, and their belief that changes to the 

current system should come not from the federal government but from 

American Samoans themselves. 

Comments from Group 

Discussions and E-mail 

Responses Reflect Some of the 

Same Reasons Offered Against 

Changing the Current System 

Based on our review of legislative proposals considered during the mid1990s, testimonies and reports, and through discussions with legal experts 

and American Samoa and federal government officials, we identified three 

potential proposals, or scenarios, if a change to the judicial system of 

American Samoa were to be made. These scenarios are (1) establishing an

Article IV district court in American Samoa, (2) establishing a district 

court in American Samoa that would be a division of the District of 

Hawaii, or (3) expanding the federal jurisdiction of the High Court of 

American Samoa. Each scenario would require a statutory change and 

present unique operational issues to be addressed. To the extent possible,

we cited written documents and knowledgeable sources in the discussion 

of these issues. See appendix I for detailed information on our scope and 

methodology. 

Scenarios for 

Establishing a Federal 

Court in American 

Samoa or Expanding 

the Federal 

Jurisdiction of the 

High Court of 

American Samoa 

Have Varied Support 

and Unresolved 

Issues 

Three Scenarios Present 

Different Structures and 

Operational Issues to Be 

Resolved 

Based on our review of past legislative proposals, testimonies, and reports, 

and through discussions with legal experts and American Samoa and 

federal government officials, we identified three potential scenarios for 

establishing a federal court in American Samoa or expanding the federal 

jurisdiction of the High Court of American Samoa: 

Page 26 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
1. establishing an Article IV district court in American Samoa, 

2. establishing a district court in American Samoa that would be a 

division of the District of Hawaii, or 

3. expanding the federal jurisdiction of the High Court of American 

Samoa. 

These scenarios are similar to those discussed in the 1990s, and are 

described in more detail in attachment I. Each scenario would require a 

statutory change and each presents unique operational issues that would 

need to be resolved prior to implementation. Some issues to be resolved 

include determining: 

• what jurisdiction would be granted to the court;

• what type of courthouse facility and detention arrangements would be 

needed and to what standards, including security standards; and 

• what jury eligibility requirements would apply. 

The original structure of this scenario came from draft legislation 

submitted by DOJ to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 

the President of the U.S. Senate in October 1996, which proposed the 

creation of a new federal court in American Samoa.62 The legislation 

specified that the court would have limited jurisdiction that would exclude 

matters pertaining to matai title and land tenure issues. Under this 

scenario, federal law would authorize a federal court structure that most 

closely resembled federal courts in CNMI, Guam, and USVI. It would 

include an Article IV district court with a district judge, court clerk, and 

support staff. Below is a description of the key issues under this scenario.

Jurisdiction: The statute creating the Article IV district court would 

specify the court’s jurisdiction. It could be limited to criminal cases only, 

or may or may not include bankruptcy, federal question, and diversity 

jurisdiction. American Samoa officials and others whom we interviewed 

were divided on whether the law establishing a district court in American 

Samoa should explicitly exclude matai and land tenure issues from the 

court’s jurisdiction. Another possibility is that, as in other insular area 

Scenario 1: Establishing an 

Article IV District Court in 

American Samoa 

 62 At that same time, the Judicial Conference of the United States’ position was that if 

Congress determined to establish federal judicial jurisdiction in American Samoa, and to 

commit sufficient resources to create such jurisdiction, the conference would endorse the

creation of an Article I district court in American Samoa. 

Page 27 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
federal courts, the federal jurisdiction of the court could grow over time. 

For example, while the District Court of Guam began with jurisdiction 

over cases arising under federal law in 1950, subsequent federal laws 

expanded its jurisdiction to include that of a district court of the United 

States, including diversity jurisdiction, and that of a bankruptcy court. 

Appeals process: The process for appealing decisions would be the same

as in other Article IV district courts. Appeals would first go to the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Judges: The judge would be appointed in the same manner as federal 

judges for the other insular areas, who are appointed by the President, 

with the advice and consent of the Senate, for 10-year terms. 

Associated Executive and Judicial Branch staff: Probation and 

Pretrial services staff, U.S. Attorney and staff, and U.S. Marshals staff 

would establish stand-alone offices. Defender services could be provided,

at least initially, through the Federal Public Defender Organization 

personnel based in the District of Hawaii and/or Criminal Justice Act 

(CJA) panel attorneys.63 CJA panel attorneys are designated or approved 

by the court to furnish legal representation for those defendants who are 

financially unable to obtain counsel.64

Physical facilities: Under this scenario, a new courthouse facility would 

need to be built to provide the courtroom, judge’s chambers, office space 

 63 Federal Public Defender officials we met with said that it is unlikely that a court in 

American Samoa would reach the minimum 200 appointments per year required to appoint

a Federal Public Defender in American Samoa. In addition, these officials also indicated 

that it is unlikely that, under the CJA provision that adjacent districts may aggregate their 

appointments to establish eligibility, there would be a sufficient CJA caseload to support

opening of a staffed branch office of the Federal Public Defender Organization 

(headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii) in American Samoa. In the past, the Federal Public 

Defender in Hawaii has represented defendants from American Samoa when brought to

trial in the U.S. District Court of Hawaii. 

64 U.S. district courts, with the approval of the judicial council of the circuit, must have a

plan for furnishing representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate 

representation. Under this plan, a judge can appoint counsel from a federal defender

organization authorized by the court or a panel of attorneys designated or approved by the

court—called a Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel—to furnish legal representation for those 

defendants who are financially unable to obtain counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Where a federal 

defender organization is established, the CJA provides that panel attorneys be appointed in

a substantial proportion of the cases (defined by guidelines as approximately 25 percent of 

the appointments annually in a district). 

Page 28 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
for federal court staff, and a holding area for detaining defendants during 

trials. It is not clear if a detention facility for detaining defendants pretrial 

and presentencing would need to be built or if a portion of the existing 

local prison could be upgraded to meet federal standards. According to the 

U.S. Marshals Service, the current local prison in American Samoa does 

not meet federal detention standards. 

Operational issues: Several judicial officials and experts we met with 

stated that this scenario is the most straightforward option because it 

would be modeled after the federal courts in other insular areas, which 

would place residents of American Samoa in a position that is equitable

with residents of the other insular areas. Other judicial officials we met 

with stated, however, that this is potentially the most costly scenario of 

the three, given the relatively small caseload expected. However, the 

Pacific Islands Committee65 stated in its 1995 Supplemental Report that 

new federal courts historically have drawn business as soon as they open

their doors, and it is likely that growth in the court caseload would result.66

This scenario would create a new division of American Samoa within the 

District of Hawaii.67 There are potentially several arrangements which 

could be devised to handle court matters. Since the U.S. District Court of 

Hawaii is an Article III court, a judge assigned to a Division of American 

Samoa would also presumably be an Article III judge, which would differ 

Scenario 2: Establishing a 

District Court in American 

Samoa That Would Be a 

Division of the District of 

Hawaii 

 65 The Pacific Islands Committee is a standing committee of the Judicial Council of the

Ninth Circuit with an indefinite liaison responsibility to the Judicial Conference of the U.S.

Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction. The Pacific Islands Committee fulfills the 

oversight responsibilities of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council and the Judicial Conference 

of the United States with respect to the judiciaries of the territories and former trust

territories in the Pacific, including American Samoa. The specific responsibilities include 

assisting in the development and provision for continuing judicial education and court

professional training, improvement of the administration of justice in the courts of the

northern Pacific, and oversight responsibility for judicial education grants from the U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 

66 Although case filings may grow over time, if the case filings in a district court for 

American Samoa were similar to those in Guam and CNMI, they would be fairly small. For 

example, according to the Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, 2007 Annual Report

of the Director: Judicial Business of the United States Courts, 38 civil and 169 criminal 

cases were filed in Guam in fiscal year 2007. For the same period in CNMI, 47 civil and 28

criminal cases were filed. By comparison, the District of Wyoming had the lowest total case 

filings of any district in the 50 states in fiscal year 2007, with 289 civil and 312 criminal 

filings. 

67 American Samoa would have to be a separate division within the U.S. District Court of

Hawaii as a means to maintain separate jury pools between American Samoa and Hawaii. 

Page 29 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
from the Article IV courts in CNMI, Guam, and USVI. Another possibility 

would be to assign an Article IV judge to American Samoa. Regardless of 

the arrangement, a clerk of the court and support staff would be needed in 

American Samoa to handle the work of the court.

Jurisdiction: As with scenario 1, the statute creating the division in the 

District of Hawaii would specify the court’s jurisdiction. It could be limited 

to criminal cases only, or may or may not include bankruptcy, federal 

question, and diversity jurisdiction. 

Appeals process: The process for appealing decisions would be the same

as the District of Hawaii, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Judges: An Article III or Article IV judge would be appointed by the 

President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and serve either a

life term with good behavior (Article III) or a 10-year term (Article IV) as is

true in Guam, CNMI, and USVI. 

Associated Executive and Judicial Branch staff: Probation and 

Pretrial services, U.S. Attorney, and U.S. Marshals could provide the 

minimum staff required in American Samoa and share support functions 

with their offices in the District of Hawaii. Defender services could be 

provided, at least initially, through Federal Public Defender Organization 

personnel based in the U.S. District Court of Hawaii and/or CJA panel 

attorneys. 

Physical facilities: As with scenario 1, a new courthouse facility would 

need to be built to provide the courtroom, judge’s chambers, office space 

for federal court staff, and a holding area for detaining defendants during 

trials. Also, similar to scenario 1, it is unclear whether a new detention 

facility would need to be built or if a portion of the existing local prison 

could be upgraded to meet federal standards. 

Operational issues: Some federal and judicial officials we interviewed 

told us that this scenario may be less costly than scenario 1 because as a 

division of the District of Hawaii, some administrative functions and 

resources may be able to be shared with Hawaii. Other federal and judicial 

officials told us that costs for staff to travel between American Samoa and 

Hawaii and additional supervisory staff which may be needed in Hawaii 

may make scenario 2 just as costly, or possibly more costly than scenario 

1. Although this scenario would allow for trials to be held in American 

Samoa, there may be issues to be resolved concerning the status of any 

Page 30 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
judges that would serve in the court and the degree to which resources 

could or would be shared with the U.S. District Court of Hawaii. For 

example, some judicial officials have raised questions of equity about the 

possibility of Article IV judges being assigned to federal courts in CNMI, 

Guam, and USVI while an Article III judge was assigned to the federal 

court in American Samoa. 

This scenario would expand the federal jurisdiction of the High Court of 

American Samoa rather than establish a new federal court. This would be 

a unique structure, as local courts typically do not exercise federal 

criminal jurisdiction. As a result, a number of unresolved issues associated 

with this scenario would have to be resolved should this scenario be 

pursued. 

Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction of the High Court would be expanded to 

include additional federal matters, such as federal criminal jurisdiction. 

This would be a unique structure, as local courts generally do not exercise 

federal criminal jurisdiction. While there is a history of federal courts in 

insular areas with jurisdiction over local offenses, there has never been 

the reverse—a local court with jurisdiction over both local and federal

offenses. 

Appeals process: The appellate process for federal matters under such a 

scenario is unclear. The current process for the limited federal cases 

handled by the High Court has five levels of appellate review: (1) to the 

Appellate Division of the High Court, (2) to the Secretary of the Interior, 

(3) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, (4) to the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and (5) to the U.S. 

Supreme Court. Whether the appeals process would be amended to match 

that of the federal courts in CNMI, Guam, and USVI would have to be

determined. 

Judges: The Chief Justice of the High Court stated that the High Court 

may need an additional judge to handle the increased caseload. 

Alternatively, in our discussions, Pacific Island Committee members with 

whom we met suggested that the Secretary of the Interior or the Chief 

Judge of the Ninth Circuit could designate active and senior district judges 

within the Ninth Circuit to handle any court workload in American Samoa. 

They point out that they designated judges from the Ninth Circuit to the 

District of Guam for over 2 years, when there was an extended judge 

vacancy. Further, the Ninth Circuit has designated local judges to handle 

federal matters, when necessary. For example, the judges from the 

Districts of CNMI and Guam routinely use local Superior Court or 

Scenario 3: Expanding the 

Federal Jurisdiction of the High 

Court of American Samoa 

Page 31 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
Supreme Court judges to handle federal court matters and trials, in cases 

when they must recuse themselves from a court matter or in the case of a

planned or emergency absence. However, Pacific Island Committee 

members with whom we met stated that presumably federal judges would 

only handle federal court matters. It was unclear whether High Court 

justices would handle federal and local court matters and what 

implications might arise from such a structure. 

Associated Executive and Judicial Branch staff: It is unclear whether 

Probation and Pretrial services, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals would 

be established, since these staff are only provided to a district court. 

Similarly, the authority under the CJA to authorize a federal defender 

organization to provide representation or to compensate panel attorneys is 

vested in the district court. The Department of Justice would need to 

determine whether it would establish a federal prosecutor position in 

American Samoa to prosecute certain federal cases in the High Court. 

There are local Public Defender and Attorney General Offices in American 

Samoa and the extent to which they could assist with cases is unknown. 

According to the Chief Justice of the High Court, it is unlikely that the 

existing probation and pretrial or court security staff would be able to 

handle an increased workload. Currently the High Court has three 

probation officers who work part-time as translators for the court, and 

two marshals, one for each of the High Court’s two courtrooms. 

Physical facilities: The extent to which federal detention and courtroom 

security requirements would apply is uncertain. Until this issue is resolved, 

activities could possibly continue in existing courthouse and detention 

facilities. However, the High Court justices and clerk said that current 

courtroom facilities are already used to capacity without the added 

caseload that federal jurisdiction could bring. 

Operational issues: This scenario may be the lowest-cost scenario and 

may alleviate concerns about the threat to the matai and land tenure 

systems. It is potentially the lowest-cost scenario because some of the 

existing court facilities and staff may be used. Some leaders within the 

American Samoa government believe this is the best option and 

supporters of this scenario note that the High Court has a history of 

respecting American Samoa traditions and so they have fewer concerns 

that issues of matai titles and land tenure would be in jeopardy. At the 

same time, as it is unprecedented to give federal criminal jurisdiction to a 

local court, this scenario could face the most challenges of the three, 

according to federal judges and other judicial officials. Legal experts with 

whom we met told us that, because this is a unique arrangement, the High

Page 32 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
Court and U.S. judiciary may be faced with having to constantly solve 

unique problems and develop solutions on a regular basis. For example, 

judicial officials stated that the High Court Justices would have to be

cognizant of their roles and responsibilities when shifting from the duties 

of a local High Court Justice to the duties of a federal judge. A judicial 

official also noted that the High Court justices may have to become 

familiar with federal sentencing guidelines, which require a considerable

amount of training. In the August 1995 hearing, the DOJ Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General stated that vesting federal jurisdiction in the High Court 

runs counter to well-established legislative policy that district courts 

should have exclusive jurisdiction over certain types of proceedings to 

which the United States is a party. For example, federal law states that 

U.S. district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses against the 

criminal laws of the United States68 and with respect to the collection of 

debts owed to the United States, provides for an exclusive debt collection

procedure in the courts created by Congress.69 Similarly, federal regulatory 

statutes often provide for enforcement and judicial review in the federal 

courts. 

Another issue to be resolved is the appointment process for justices of the 

High Court. While none of the judicial officials with whom we met had 

concerns about the independence of the current justices, some expressed 

concerns about the differences in the way judges are appointed—while 

federal judges are generally appointed by the President, the justices in 

American Samoa are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. As such, 

they suggested that the justices in American Samoa may not be subject to 

the same vetting process and protected by the same constitutional and 

statutory provisions—such as salary guarantees—as are district judges. 

The potential cost elements for establishing a federal court in American 

Samoa include agency rental costs, personnel costs, and operational costs;

most of which would be funded by congressional appropriations. We 

collected likely cost elements, to the extent possible, for scenario 1 and 2 

from the various federal agencies that would be involved in establishing a

federal court in American Samoa. We did not collect cost data for scenario

3 because of its unique judicial arrangement and because there was no 

comparable existing federal court structure upon which to estimate costs. 

Potential Cost 

Elements Subject to 

Considerable

Uncertainties 

 68 18 U.S.C. § 3231. 

69 28 U.S.C. §§ 3001, 3002(2). 

Page 33 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
For scenario 1 and 2, AOUSC officials told us that a new courthouse would 

need to be built. GSA officials told us that court construction and agency 

rental costs would be comparatively high—about $80 to $90 per square 

foot for a new courthouse, compared to typical federal government rental 

charges for office space in American Samoa of around $45 to $50 per 

square foot in 2007. Funding sources for the judiciary and DOJ derive 

primarily from direct congressional appropriations and funding for a 

federal courthouse in American Samoa would likely be funded similarly. 

We found the data for scenarios 1 and 2 sufficiently reliable to provide 

rough estimates of the possible future costs for these scenarios for 

establishing a federal court in American Samoa, with limitations as noted. 

Because the three court scenarios presented are hypothetical, and the 

exact details of the jurisdiction, staffing, and physical facilities would have 

to be determined when, and if, a specific scenario were adopted, the 

estimated costs cannot be aggregated to obtain a precise estimate of the 

total costs for the scenarios. Rather, the cost data should be viewed as 

general approximations of the types and magnitude of costs that could be

incurred. Recognizing this uncertainty, we collected likely cost elements 

for each scenario, to the extent possible, from federal agencies that would 

be involved in establishing a federal court in American Samoa—GSA for 

construction and rental costs, AOUSC for judicial branch costs, and 

EOUSA and USMS for executive branch costs. 

We collected cost data for scenarios 1 and 2. According to AOUSC, under 

each of these scenarios a new courthouse would need to be built. We did 

not estimate costs for bankruptcy courts for either scenario, since, if the 

district court were to hear bankruptcy cases, it is likely that the district 

court judge would hear both federal matters and bankruptcy cases, similar 

to other district judges in CNMI, Guam, and USVI. We did not collect cost 

data for scenario 3 because, as stated earlier, it would be a unique judicial 

arrangement and there is no comparable existing federal court structure 

upon which to estimate costs. The cost data presented cannot be used for 

budget purposes and an analysis of cost effectiveness would be of limited

value given that the data are fragmented. The controversy surrounding 

whether and how to create a venue for adjudicating matters of federal law

in American Samoa is not principally focused on an analysis of cost 

effectiveness, but other policy considerations, such as equity, justice, and 

cultural preservation. Thus, policy considerations, other than cost 

effectiveness, are more likely to be the basis for deciding whether and how 

to establish a court with federal jurisdiction in American Samoa. 

Data Limitations and 

Assumptions 

Page 34 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
Due to limitations on existing buildings and potential land restrictions—

about 90 percent of American Samoan land is communally owned—GSA 

officials told us that a new courthouse in American Samoa would likely 

use a build-to-suit lease construction arrangement rather than

government-owned construction and that construction and consequent 

rental costs would be comparatively high. GSA provided initial 

construction and rental costs for the hypothetical courthouse in American 

Samoa, based on a floor plan submitted for a proposed new one-judge 

courthouse in CNMI. According to GSA officials, there are no buildings in 

American Samoa suitable for use as a federal courthouse. Further, officials 

from the High Court of American Samoa told us that its two-courtroom 

High Court building and its one-courtroom local district court building are 

frequently used to capacity. 

Under build-to-lease construction, the government contracts with a private 

developer to build the courthouse and, in this case, GSA leases the 

completed building based on the amortization of a 20-year construction 

loan. GSA would then rent portions of the building to the tenant federal 

agencies, such as AOUSC, EOUSA, and USMS. GSA officials gave very 

preliminary rent estimates of $80 to $90 per square foot,70 based on 

requirements similar to an existing build-to-suit lease prospectus for a new 

courthouse in CNMI.71 Further, GSA officials told us that federal agencies 

would be responsible for up-front payments for the particular courthouse 

governmental features, such as holding cells, and blast protection for 

security.72 GSA officials indicate that the accuracy of the initial American 

Samoa court construction may vary by as much as -20 to +80 percent, 

thereby influencing rental costs. The GSA Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Region IX Pacific Rim stated that there are many factors 

that could affect construction costs and, therefore, the tenant agencies’ 

rental costs. For example, any cost increases associated with the condition

of an unknown site or escalation in construction costs beyond what has 

Court Construction and 

Agency Rental Costs 

Would be Comparatively 

High 

 70 This rental cost was based on an estimated cost of construction of approximately $56 

million, assuming a 20-year amortization of the investment. 

71 The housing plan, developed for the proposed new CNMI courthouse for fiscal year 2009, 

includes about 68,000 rentable square feet for one courtroom, judge’s chambers, and office 

space for the district court operations, U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services, the U.S.

Attorney’s Office, and USMS. 

72 OMB Circular A-11, Appendix B requires that federal agencies fund, with up-front

payments, the cost of inherently governmental features of the space they lease. 

Page 35 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
been anticipated will have a direct and proportional impact on the rental 

costs, as well as the up-front costs that agencies may be required to pay. 

Preliminary rental costs of $80 to $90 per square foot for a new courthouse 

with specialized building requirements would exceed typical federal 

government rental charges for offices in American Samoa at the prevailing

market rates of $45 to $50 per rentable square foot in 2007. 

For scenarios 1 and 2, AOUSC officials provided information related to 

three types of costs 

Judicial Branch Costs 

Include Judges, Court 

Staff, and Federal 

Defender 1. district court costs, 

2. probation and pretrial services costs, and 

3. federal defender costs. : 

District court costs: For yearly district court costs under scenario 1, 

AOUSC provided us with district court cost estimates of about $1.5 million 

for personnel costs, including the costs of one district court judge and the 

full-time equivalent salaries of 2 law clerks and 1 secretary, 11 district 

clerk’s office staff, 1 pro se law clerk,

73 1 court reporter, and recruitment 

and training costs.74 Operational costs were estimated at $0.1 million, 

which includes judge’s law books, stationery, forms, new case assignment 

and jury management systems, travel, postage and delivery charges, and 

consumables for both the first year and recurring years. Information 

technology and other equipment costs were estimated at $0.1 million. 

Space and facilities costs ranged between $2.6 million to $2.9 million and 

include necessary alterations and renovations, signage, furnishings, 

furniture, and estimated GSA rental costs.75

Scenario 1 Costs 

 73 Pro se law clerks assist judges in the management of cases filed by litigants representing 

themselves. 

74 Because reliable estimates of the number of civil and criminal cases were not known, 

AOUSC officials based their estimates on the actual costs obligated in 2007 for the District 

Court of the Northern Mariana Islands. Further, AOUSC officials stated that some district 

court costs may vary by caseload. 

75 GSA officials estimated that a courthouse in American Samoa would require about 32,000

rentable square feet, based on GSA’s build-to-suit lease prospectus developed for a new 

courthouse in CNMI. 

Page 36 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
Probation and pretrial services costs: For the yearly cost of probation

and pretrial services, AOUSC provided us with personnel and benefits 

costs estimated at $0.3 million, which includes the full-time equivalent 

salaries of one Chief Probation Officer, one probation officer, and one 

administrative support staff. Operational costs were estimated at $0.1 

million, including travel, training, transportation, postage, printing, 

maintenance, drug dependent offender testing and aftercare, pretrial drug 

testing, mental health treatment services, monitoring services, DNA 

testing, notices/advertising, contractual services, supplies, awards, 

firearms, and protective equipment. Information technology and other 

equipment costs were estimated at about $16,000 (i.e., equipment, 

maintenance, purchase of copy equipment, computer training, phone 

communications, supplies, computers, phones, data communications 

equipment, printers, scanner, and computer software).76 Space and 

facilities costs were estimated at $0.4 million to $0.5 million, which 

includes furniture and fixture purchases, as well as GSA rental costs.77

Federal Defender costs: AOUSC officials did not estimate costs for a 

Federal Defender’s office, since it is unlikely that the hypothetical court in

American Samoa would, at least initially, reach the minimum 200 

appointments per year required to authorize a Federal Defender 

Organization or the number of cases that would warrant the creation of a 

Federal Public Defender Organization headquartered in the District of 

Hawaii. The court in American Samoa, as an adjacent district, might be 

able to share the Federal Public Defender Organization staff based in 

Hawaii, or the court could rely solely on a CJA panel of attorneys.78 The 

costs to the Federal Public Defender Organization in Hawaii and the costs 

of reimbursing CJA attorneys would vary based on the caseload of the 

court. 

 76 Because the number of civil and criminal cases was unknown, AOUSC officials based 

their personnel and benefits and operational and information technology cost estimates on 

a percentage of the actual costs obligated in 2007 from the Probation and Pretrial Services 

Office in Guam, which is a consolidated operation covering both district courts located in 

CNMI and Guam. AOSUC officials determined the percentage of resources used to support 

the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands as a basis for the estimate of costs for 

an office in American Samoa. 

77 GSA estimated that probation and pretrial services would need about 5,500 rentable 

square feet for its operations in American Samoa, based on the CNMI build-to-suit lease 

prospectus.

78 See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. 

Page 37 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
District Court costs: According to AOUSC, the estimated district court 

costs for scenario 2 could be similar to the estimated costs for scenario 1.

An AOUSC official indicated that there may not be a need for a clerk, 

financial/procurement officer, jury clerk, or information technology 

specialist in American Samoa under scenario 2, as those functions may be 

handled out of the District of Hawaii office, leading to some possible 

reductions in personnel salaries. However, some judicial officials stated 

that any decrease in staff costs for this scenario may be offset by 

increased costs for travel between Hawaii and American Samoa. GSA 

rental costs would be comparable to scenario 1. 

Probation and pretrial services costs: Probation and Pretrial Services

officials did not provide any cost differences between scenarios 1 and 2.

Federal Defender costs: Either the Office of the Federal Public 

Defender in Hawaii or a CJA panel may provide defender services in 

American Samoa under both situations, thereby also not leading to any 

significant change in cost estimates between scenarios 1 and 2.

For the Department of Justice, an EOUSA official provided U.S. Attorney’s 

Office cost estimates and a USMS official provided security cost estimates 

for both scenario 1 and scenario 2. 

Scenario 1 costs: EOUSA officials calculated the cost of a U.S. Attorney’s 

office based on a partial first year and a complete second year. Modular 

personnel costs are $0.6 million for the first year and $1.0 million for the 

second year, which includes one U.S. Attorney, three attorneys, and two 

support staff. Operational costs ranged from $0.5 million to $0.9 million, 

including travel and transportation, utilities, advisory and assistance 

services, printing and reproduction, and supplies and materials.79

Information technology costs were estimated at $0.1 million for equipment 

and the operation and maintenance of equipment. Space and facilities 

Scenario 2 Costs 

Executive Branch Costs 

Include Federal 

Prosecution and Security 

Costs 

U.S. Attorney’s Office Costs 

 79 Because reliable estimates of the number of criminal and civil cases for American Samoa

were not known, the U.S. Attorney’s Office nonpersonnel cost data for scenario 1 were

estimated based on fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 obligation data for the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office for the District of Guam. This is a small U.S. Attorney’s Office and is

responsible for the federal district courts in CNMI and Guam. EOUSA officials told us that 

CNMI district court obligations could not be separated out from Guam obligation data. 

Page 38 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
costs range between $1.3 million and $1.4 million and include the 

operation and maintenance of facilities and rent to GSA80 and others. 

Scenario 2 costs: EOUSA officials calculated U.S. Attorney’s office 

personnel costs for a partial first year and a complete second year. 

Modular personnel costs rose from $0.6 million in the first year to $1.0 

million throughout the second year, which includes four attorneys and two 

support staff. Operational costs remain consistent at $0.2 million for both 

the first and second years, reflecting travel and transportation, litigation 

costs, supplies, and other miscellaneous costs. Information technology 

and equipment costs were estimated to be approximately $0.1 million for 

both years. Yearly rental rates may also be comparable in the initial years. 

Personnel and operations costs for scenario 2 were estimated to be less 

than for scenario 1 because scenario 2 does not include a separate U.S. 

Attorney for American Samoa. Rather, the costs for scenario 2 are based

on the estimated costs and personnel the U.S. Attorney for the District of 

Hawaii would need to support cases that arise in American Samoa. 

Scenario 1 costs: USMS officials estimated that personnel costs were 

$0.8 million, based on fiscal year 2008 salaries, benefits, and law 

enforcement availability pay for all supervisory (one U.S. Marshal, one 

Chief Deputy, one Judicial Security Inspector) and nonsupervisory (two 

Deputy Marshals and one administrative) personnel that would be 

needed.81 Operational costs were estimated to be $0.8 million based on 

fiscal year 2008 standard, nonpersonnel costs for district operational and 

administrative positions (including vehicles, weapons, protective gear, 

communications equipment, and operational travel costs), and $0.7 million 

for defendant transport (including guard wages, airfare, per diem meals, 

and lodging).82 Information technology and equipment costs were 

estimated at $0.6 million for the installation of a computer network and 

telephone system to all USMS offices, and $0.2 million for yearly service 

U.S. Marshals Service Costs 

 80 GSA estimated that the U.S. Attorney’s Office would need about 15,800 rentable square 

feet for its operations in American Samoa, based on the CNMI build-to-suit lease 

prospectus.

81 Additionally, USMS indicated that it may be necessary to pay incentive bonuses to attract 

personnel to American Samoa, as well as permanent change of duty station relocation 

costs.

82 Cost data are partially based on prisoner transportation costs in the USMS office in 

Guam. 

Page 39 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
on the wide-area network to American Samoa.83 Space and facilities costs 

were estimated between $1.1 million and $1.3 million for rent,84 plus 

variable defendant detention facility housing costs.85

Scenario 2 costs: With regard to scenario 2, USMS officials estimated 

that yearly personnel costs would be $0.5 million. Since a U.S. Marshal, 

Chief Deputy, and Judicial Security Officer would be shared with the 

USMS in Hawaii and not be located in American Samoa, personnel costs 

for this scenario are estimated to be approximately $0.4 million less than 

scenario 1. Operational costs (reflecting the standard, nonpersonnel costs 

for operational and administrative positions) under scenario 2 were 

estimated to be $0.5 million, or about $0.3 million less than scenario 1. The 

operational cost differential between the two scenarios with respect to 

prisoner transport is unclear.86 While the USMS did not specifically address 

information technology costs and other equipment costs with respect to 

scenario 2, the same types of costs in scenario 1 would be involved if a 

computer network and telephone system would need to be established. 

With respect to space and facilities, if the USMS were housed in the same 

court building as used for scenario 1, rental costs should be comparable 

(between $1.1 million and $1.3 million.) If, however, under scenario 2, the 

USMS were housed in an office building rather than a courthouse, then the 

resulting cost may be lower than scenario 1. Additionally, to the extent 

that defendants are detained in the same facilities as in scenario 1 (e.g., the 

Bureau of Prisons detention facility in Hawaii), detention facility costs 

should be comparable. 

 83 If radio towers and supporting radio infrastructure do not already exist in American 

Samoa, then USMS officials said this may result in additional costs. 

84 Based on GSA’s proposed CNMI courthouse floor plan, USMS would be allocated 13,935

rentable square feet. If rent ranged from $80 to $90 per square foot, USMS’ rent could range 

between $1.1 and $1.3 million. 

85 If federal defendants were detained pretrial at the Bureau of Prisons’ detention facility in 

Hawaii, there is no charge to USMS for housing. Given the capacity of this facility, USMS 

officials told us that it may be able to absorb any American Samoan defendants. If 

necessary, other detention facilities have been available for use (e.g., the San Bernardino 

County, California jail, the Agana, Guam detention facility, CNMI Department of

Corrections, and Guam Penitentiary). Assuming up to 50 American Samoan defendants in 

USMS custody per year, for an average of 60 days each, the cost of housing at these 

facilities may range up to $0.2 million based on fiscal year 2007 costs.

86 Defendant transportation costs may vary depending upon the number of court

productions required.

Page 40 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
Funding for the federal judiciary and DOJ agencies derives primarily from 

direct congressional appropriations to each agency and funding for a 

federal court in American Samoa would likely be funded similarly. In fiscal 

year 2006, about 94 percent of the total court salary and expense 

obligations were obtained through direct judiciary funding. The remaining 

6 percent was obtained through offsetting collections, such as fees. In that

same year, about 95 percent of the total Probation and Pretrial Services 

obligations were obtained through direct congressional appropriations. 

With regard to DOJ, in fiscal year 2006, 96 percent of the U.S. Attorneys’ 

obligations to support district court activities were obtained through 

direct congressional appropriations and the remaining 4 percent were 

obtained through other sources, such as asset forfeitures. In fiscal year 

2008, USMS used direct congressional appropriations to cover the 

expenses for staff hiring, payroll, relocation, personnel infrastructure, 

rent, and utilities. The Office of the Federal Detention Trustee funds 100 

percent of prisoner detention, meals, medical care, and transportation. 

AOUSC funds 100 percent of the court security officers, magnetometers, 

and security measures at courthouse entrances. 

We are not making recommendations regarding whether the current 

system and structure for adjudicating matters of federal law in American 

Samoa should be changed. Also, given the multiple limitations on available 

cost data, we are not making any determinations as to whether the current

system is more or less costly than the different scenarios for change

presented in this report. Rather, our purpose in reporting the issues has 

been to provide decision makers with information regarding the issues 

associated with potential scenarios for change. While the cost data are 

very limited, in the end, the controversy surrounding whether and how to 

create a venue for adjudicating matters of federal law emanating from 

American Samoa is not principally focused on costs, but on other factors, 

such as equity, justice, and cultural preservation. Thus, policy

considerations, other than an analysis of cost effectiveness, are more 

likely to be the basis for deciding whether and how to establish a court 

with federal jurisdiction in American Samoa. 

Madame Chairwoman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be 

happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the 

Subcommittee may have at this time. 

Potential Funding Sources 

Associated with 

Implementing the Different 

Scenarios

Concluding 

Observations 

Page 41 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
Attachment I 

Table 1: Description of Scenarios for Establishing a Federal Court in American Samoa or Expanding the Federal Jurisdiction

of the High Court of American Samoa 

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 

Structure Federal court modeled on other 

federal courts in U.S. territories. 

District court in American Samoa that 

is a division of the District of Hawaii. 

Unique arrangement granting the 

High Court federal criminal jurisdiction

as well as expanded federal civil 

jurisdiction. 

Judge and court 

staff 

Article IV judge in American 

Samoa with court clerk and 

support staff. 

Judge appointed by President with 

advice and consent of the Senate. 

Article IV or Article III judge in 

American Samoa with court clerk and 

support staff. 

Judge appointed by President with 

advice and consent of the Senate. 

High Court Justices would hear 

additional federal matters. 

Additional judge may be required, 

who may be appointed by the 

Secretary of the Interior or, as with 

other federal judges, by the 

President, with advice and consent of 

the Senate. 

U.S. Attorney One resident U.S. Attorney with 

three staff attorneys and support 

staff. 

Share U.S. Attorney with District of 

Hawaii and staff a satellite office with 

one Assistant U.S. Attorney, three 

staff attorneys, and support staff. 

May use a federal prosecutor and/or 

local Attorney General. 

Defender Services Shared federal Public defender 

with District of Hawaii (using staff 

based in Hawaii)a and/or CJA 

Panel

 b

Shared federal Public defender with 

District of Hawaii (using staff based in 

Hawaii) a and/or CJA Panel b

Under current law, federal defender 

services are not provided unless 

within a judicial district. May be able 

to use a local public defender.

U.S. Marshals 

Service 

One U.S. Marshal, one chief 

deputy, one judicial security 

inspector, two deputy marshals, 

and one administrative staff. 

Share U.S. Marshal with Hawaii and 

staff a satellite office with supervisory 

deputy marshal, two deputy marshals, 

and one administrative staff. 

Federal detention and security

requirements may not apply. May be 

able to use a local marshal or law 

enforcement staff. 

Probation and 

Pretrial Services 

One chief probation officer, one 

probation officer and one 

administrative staff in American 

Samoa with shared staff in District 

of Hawaii for additional support. 

One chief probation officer, one 

probation officer and one 

administrative staff in American 

Samoa with shared staff in District of 

Hawaii for additional support. 

Under current law, federal Probation 

and Pretrial services are not provided 

unless within a judicial district.

Facilities New courthouse facility would be 

needed that can house judge,

court staff, U.S. Attorney staff,

U.S. Marshal staff, and holding 

facility. Unclear whether new 

federal detention center would be 

needed or whether a portion of the 

existing local prison could be

upgraded. 

New courthouse facility would be 

needed that can house judge, court 

staff, U.S. Attorney staff, U.S. 

Marshal staff, and holding facility. 

Unclear whether new federal 

detention center would be needed or 

whether a portion of the existing local 

prison could be upgraded. 

Federal court requirements may not 

apply. May be able to use existing 

High Court or District Court facilities. 

Unclear whether a new prison would 

be needed or whether a portion of the 

existing prison could be upgraded. 

Jurisdiction May be jurisdiction of district court 

and bankruptcy court, or may be 

more limited. 

May be jurisdiction of district court 

and bankruptcy court, or may be 

more limited. 

Limited jurisdiction, which may grow 

over time. 

Appeals Appeals to U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit. 

Same as District of Hawaii (appeals 

to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit). 

It is unclear whether and to which 

tribunal High Court decisions would 

be appealed. 

Source: GAO analysis of relevant federal laws. 

Page 42 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
a

According to Federal Public Defender officials, it is unlikely that a court in American Samoa would 

reach the minimum 200 appointments per year required to appoint a Federal Public Defender in 

American Samoa.

b

U.S. district courts, with the approval of the judicial council of the circuit, must have a plan for 

furnishing representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate representation. Under 

this plan, a judge can appoint counsel from a federal defender organization authorized by the court or

a panel of attorneys designated or approved by the court—called a Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 

panel—to furnish legal representation for those defendants who are financially unable to obtain 

counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Where a federal defender organization is established, the CJA provides 

that panel attorneys be appointed in a substantial proportion of the cases (defined by guidelines as

approximately 25 percent of the appointments annually in a district). 

Page 43 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 
Attachment II: GAO Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

For further information about this statement, please contact William O. 

Jenkins, Jr. at (202) 512-7777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on

the last page of this statement. Staff making key contributions to this 

statement were Christopher Conrad, Assistant Director, Nancy Kawahara,

and Tracey King. 

Page 44 GAO-08-1124T American Samoa 

GAO Contacts 

(440753) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, DC 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER