Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

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

9 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

United States 12.  Proceeding on the parties’ shared prem-
ise, the Court applies the Constitution and holds that the
conduct challenged here does not offend its terms.  All that 
may obviate the necessity of overruling the Insular Cases 
today.  But it should not obscure what we know to be true 
about  their  errors,  and  in  an  appropriate  case  I  hope  the
Court  will  soon  recognize  that  the  Constitution’s  applica-
tion should never turn on a governmental concession or the 
misguided framework of the Insular Cases.  Asked why he
dissented in those cases year after year, Justice Harlan re-
plied that “ ‘no question can be settled until settled right.’ ”  
Coudert 842.  We should settle this question right. 

To be sure, settling this question right would raise diffi-
cult new ones.  Cases would no longer turn on the fictions
of the Insular Cases but on the terms of the Constitution 
itself.  Disputes are sure to arise about exactly which of its 
individual  provisions  applies  in  the  Territories  and  how.
Some  of  these  new  questions  may  prove  hard  to  resolve. 
But at least they would be the right questions.  And at least 
courts would employ legally justified tools to answer them, 
including  not  just  the  Constitution’s  text  and  its  original 
understanding  but  the  Nation’s  historical  practices  (or  at
least  those  uninfected  by  the  Insular  Cases).  See  Fitise-
manu, 1 F. 4th, at 883 (Tymkovich, C. J., concurring); see 
also NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U. S. 513, 525 (2014); id., 
at 572–574, and n. 1 (Scalia, J., dissenting); W. Baude, Con-
stitutional  Liquidation,  71  Stan.  L.  Rev.  1,  13–21  (2019). 
Nor, in any event, can the difficulty of the task supply an
excuse for neglecting it.4 

—————— 

4 In the last few years, some have attempted a revisionist account of 
the Insular Cases.  On this view, this Court’s decision to withhold full 
constitutional protection from “unincorporated” Territories (now) serves
the beneficial end of safeguarding traditional cultures.  See, e.g., Fitise-
manu, 1 F. 4th, at 870.  Put aside the amicus briefs from the Governor of 
Puerto Rico, territorial advocacy groups, and the U. S. Virgin Islands ex-
pressing vehement disagreement with the Insular Cases.  Put aside, too,