Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

7 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

similar conclusions in case after case.2 

With the passage of time, this Court has come to admit
discomfort with the Insular Cases.  See Reid v. Covert, 354 
U. S.  1,  14  (1957)  (plurality  opinion);  Financial  Oversight 
and Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, 
590 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (slip op., at 21–22).  But in-
stead of confronting their errors directly, this Court has de-
vised  a  workaround.    Employing  the  specious  logic  of  the
Insular Cases, the Court has proceeded to declare “funda-
mental”—and  thus  applicable  even  to  “unincorporated” 
Territories—more  and  more  of  the  Constitution’s  guaran-
tees.  See S. Cleveland, Powers Inherent in Sovereignty:  In-
dians, Aliens, Territories, and the Nineteenth Century Or-
igins  of  Plenary  Power  Over  Foreign  Affairs,  81  Texas  L. 
Rev. 1, 241–243 (2002) (collecting cases).

That solution is no solution.  It leaves the Insular Cases 
on the books.  Lower courts continue to feel constrained to 
apply their terms.  See, e.g., Fitisemanu v. United States, 1 
F. 4th 862, 873 (CA10 2021); Tuaua v. United States, 788 
F. 3d  300,  306–307  (CADC  2015).   And  the  fictions  of  the 
Insular Cases on which this workaround depends are just
that.  What provision of the Constitution could any judge
rightly declare less than fundamental?  On what basis could 
any judge profess the right to draw distinctions between in-
corporated and unincorporated Territories, terms nowhere 
mentioned in the Constitution and which in the past have
turned on bigotry?  There are no good answers to these bad 
questions. 
—————— 

2 See, e.g., Springville v. Thomas, 166 U. S. 707, 708–709 (1897) (Sev-
enth  Amendment  jury-unanimity  requirement  applied  in  Utah  Terri-
tory); Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U. S. 130, 137 (1879) (Eighth Amendment
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment applied in Utah Territory); 
Reynolds  v.  United  States,  98  U. S.  145,  154,  158,  162  (1879)  (Sixth 
Amendment  jury-trial  and  confrontation  rights  and  First  Amendment 
free-exercise right applied in Utah Territory); see also Cross v. Harrison, 
16 How. 164, 193, 197–198 (1854) (domestic law, including the Tax Uni-
formity Clause, applied in California).