Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 27

4 

UNITED STATES v. VAELLO MADERO 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

cases, Justice White argued, only “fundamental” (if unspec-
ified)  aspects  of  the  Constitution  should  have  force.    Id., 
at 291.  In his judgment, Puerto Rico fell into this second 
category  and  remained  “foreign  to  the  United  States”  be-
cause,  unlike  Territories  in  the  American  West,  Congress
had  not  done  enough to  indicate  its  intention  to  “incorpo-
rate” the island.  Id., at 341–342.  Still, it would be a mis-
take to overstate the gap between the theories advanced by 
Justice White and Justice Brown.  At bottom, both rested 
on a view about the Nation’s “right” to acquire and exploit
“an  unknown  island,  peopled  with  an  uncivilized  race  . . . 
for commercial and strategic reasons”—a right that “could 
not be practically exercised if the result would be to endow”
full constitutional protections “on those absolutely unfit to
receive [them].”  Id., at 306 (White, J., concurring).

In dissent, Chief Justice Fuller expressed astonishment
that Congress could “keep [a Territory], like a disembodied
shade, in an intermediate state of ambiguous existence for 
an indefinite period.”  Id., at 372.  Justice Harlan criticized 
the Court for “engraft[ing] upon our republican institutions 
a colonial system such as exists under monarchical govern-
ments.”  Id., at 380.  And Justice Harlan dismissed Justice 
White’s  supposed  middle  ground,  which  he  could  find  no-
where in the Constitution’s terms:  “I am constrained to say
that  this  idea  of  ‘incorporation’  has  some  occult  meaning 
which my mind does not apprehend.”  Id., at 391. 

Later decisions blurred the line between Justice Brown’s 
approach and Justice White’s even further.  Eventually, a
majority embraced Justice White’s “incorporation” theory, 
including its suggestion that certain constitutional protec-
tions  are  “fundamental”  and  therefore  apply  even  in  far-
flung “unincorporated” possessions.  Dorr v. United States, 
195 U. S. 138, 148–149 (1904).  At the same time, it became 
clear that very few constitutional limits on the power of the
federal  government  could  be  relied  upon  in  the  newly  ac-
quired Territories absent a clear congressional statement.