American Samoa: Issues Associated with Potential Changes to the Current System for Adjudicating Matters of Federal Law
Published: 2008-06-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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. Specifically, this report 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. To conduct this work, we reviewed previous studies and testimonies, and collected information from and conducted interviews with federal government officials and American Samoa government officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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 this study. Based on previous studies and information gathered for this 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: American Samoa is unique among U.S. insular areas in that it does not  have a federal court. 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 Samoa and later that  month, the American Samoa legislature held a public hearing to solicit  public comments. No congressional actions were taken on the bill and the  Delegate from American Samoa withdrew the legislation after he and  others requested this report.
In particular, you requested that we examine the unique judicial structure  of American Samoa and identify the issues associated with establishing a  federal court in American Samoa. This report discusses:  (1) the current system and structure for 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) the description of 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 are not making recommendations regarding whether the current  system and structure for adjudicating matters of federal law in American  Samoa should be changed. Also, we will not be making any determinations  as to whether the current system is more or less costly than the different  scenarios presented in this report. Rather, our purpose is to provide  decision makers with information regarding the issues associated with  potential scenarios for change.
To meet our objectives, we reviewed historical documents, congressional  testimonies, law review articles, and previous studies, and conducted  interviews with federal government officials, to include: the Administrative  Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC); the Department of the Interior (DOI);  the Department of Justice (DOJ); the General Services Administration  (GSA); the U.S. Attorneys offices serving federal courts located in CNMI  and Guam, Hawaii, and USVI; the Inspector General offices of the  Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Transportation, and  Health and Human Services; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth  Circuit; the U.S. District Court of Hawaii; the District Court for the  Northern Mariana Islands; the District Court of Guam; and the District  Court of the Virgin Islands. We also reviewed historical documents and  court statistical data from and conducted interviews with American Samoa  government officials in the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of  government. In addition, to address the first three objectives, we held  group discussions with members of the local bar association and the local  chamber of commerce, and conducted a public forum with college  students and members of the general public during our visit to American  Samoa in October 2007. Further, we established an e-mail account and  received comments from the general public regarding their views on  possible scenarios for establishing a federal court in American Samoa or  expanding the federal jurisdiction of the High Court of American Samoa.  Although these views cannot be generalized to the population of American  Samoa as a whole, they provided us with a better understanding of the  range of issues that were important to members of the local community.  To address the first three objectives, we also interviewed recognized legal  experts on territorial governance issues. These experts were not intended  to be representative of all expert opinions on American Samoa judicial  issues, but were contacted because they could provide insights on  territorial governance issues in general. For the fourth objective, we  collected available data regarding the potential cost elements and funding  sources related to establishing a federal court in American Samoa from  AOUSC, GSA, and DOJ’s Executive Office for United States Attorneys  (EOUSA) and U.S. Marshals Service (USMS). Since these agencies could  only provide rough estimates of potential costs, and because of the  numerous caveats associated with the various costs elements, the data  cannot be used for budget purposes or to measure the true costs regarding  the establishment of a federal court in American Samoa. Further, since the  court scenarios were hypothetical and the exact details of the jurisdiction,  staffing, and physical facilities are not known, the estimated costs cannot  be aggregated to obtain a precise estimate of the total costs for the  scenarios. We did not collect any cost data related to expanding the  federal jurisdiction of the High Court of American Samoa, since this would  be a unique judicial structure and there is no comparable existing federal  court structure upon which to estimate costs. We found the cost data  provided to be sufficiently reliable to provide rough estimates of potential  future costs for establishing a federal court in American Samoa, with  limitations as noted. Appendix I contains a more detailed description of  the scope and methodology.
We conducted this 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: As shown in figure 1, of the four insular areas addressed in this report,  three are located in the Pacific—American Samoa, CNMI, and Guam—and  one is located in the Caribbean—the USVI. Each of these insular areas has  its own unique culture and historical relationship with the United States.  See appendices V, VI, VII, and VIII for detailed descriptions of the history  and development of the judicial systems of American Samoa, CNMI,  Guam, and USVI, respectively.
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. The capital of American  Samoa, Pago Pago, is located on the main island of Tutuila, which is  mostly rugged terrain with relatively little level land. Agricultural  production is limited by the scarcity of arable land, and tourism is  impaired by the island’s remote location and lack of tourist-rated facilities.  Two tuna canneries constitute the main sources of private sector  employment. Most of the economic activity and government operations on  Tutuila take place in the Pago Pago Bay area.
According to the American Samoa Department of Commerce data, in 2005  the population of American Samoa was about 65,500. Unlike residents  born in CNMI, Guam, and USVI, residents born in American Samoa are  nationals of the United States, but may become naturalized U.S. citizens.   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. The Delegate from American  Samoa has all congressional privileges, including a vote in committee,  except a vote in Congress as a whole. Further, 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.
American Samoa does not have an organic act that formally establishes  the relationship between American Samoa and the United States.  Two  deeds of cession were initially completed between Samoan chiefs, or  matai, and the United States in 1900 and 1904 and ratified by the federal  government in 1929. 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 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. 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.
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. 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 Samoan Code, consists of a High Court and a local  district court under the administration and supervision of the Chief  Justice. 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. 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 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 legal training,  who hears matters such as misdemeanor criminal offenses and civil cases  in which the matter in controversy does not exceed $5,000. The Chief and  Associate Justices, and the local district and associate judges hold office  for life with good behavior. 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.
subsections: section_title: American Samoan Customs and Traditions
paragraphs: 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  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. The concept of fa’a Samoa extends to  the governance structures in American Samoa and, thus, most high- ranking 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.
section_title: Past Proposals to Establish a Federal Court in American Samoa
paragraphs: 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  act. 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. In  addition, in the mid-1990s 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.  However, while the House Committee on Resources held hearings on the  1994 DOJ report in August 1995, and judicial committees studied various  legislative options, the 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.  No  congressional actions were taken on the bill and the Delegate from  American Samoa withdrew the legislation after he and others requested  this report.
section_title: Differences between Article IV Courts in Insular Areas and Article III Courts
paragraphs: 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. Article IV courts are similar to Article III courts, but  differ in terms of specific jurisdiction and tenure of the judges. As shown  in table 1, 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.
section_title: The Federal Courts in CNMI, Guam, and USVI
paragraphs: 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. The District Court of Guam was established when the  federal government passed an Organic Act for Guam in 1950. The District  Court of the Virgin Islands, as it currently exists, was established by an  Organic Act in 1936.  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.  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.  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 consent of the Senate, for a term of 10 years,  but may be removed by the President for cause. For the history and  development of courts in the CNMI, Guam, and USVI, see appendixes VI,  VII, and VIII, respectively.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: American Samoa’s Local Judicial Structure Differs from Local Judicial Structures in CNMI, Guam, and USVI
paragraphs: 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.
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.), as stated earlier.
section_title: Federal Criminal Cases Arising in American Samoa Are Generally Heard in Hawaii and the District of Columbia
paragraphs: 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. However, since a 2001 precedent- setting case involving human trafficking, 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.
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. 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. In 2006 and 2007, DOJ attorneys prosecuted defendants in the  U.S. district courts in both Hawaii and the District of Columbia for civil  rights violations and public corruption cases arising in American Samoa.  DOJ prosecutors told us that their approach is adjusted depending on the  facts of each case, legal challenges presented, and prosecutorial resources  available.
section_title: Proper Federal Venue May Not Exist for the Adjudication of Certain Federal Civil and Bankruptcy Matters
paragraphs: 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.  However, some civil cases have been brought against the Secretary of the  Department of the Interior alleging that the Secretary’s administration of  the government of American Samoa violated the U.S. Constitution. 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.  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.
section_title: The Federal Jurisdiction of American Samoa’s High Court is Very Limited Compared to Federal Courts in Other Insular Areas
paragraphs: As discussed above, because American Samoa does not have a federal  court, federal officials have had to seek U.S. district courts to adjudicate  matters of federal law arising in 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. 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, as shown  in table 3.  Although the High Court does not keep data on the number of  federal cases it handles, the Chief Justice of the High Court official told us  that, on occasion, these federal matters, particularly maritime cases, 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.
As shown in table 4, the federal jurisdiction of the High Court of American  Samoa is very limited as compared to comprehensive federal jurisdiction  in federal courts located in CNMI, Guam, and USVI.  In addition to the  limits of federal jurisdiction, there are differences in the way federal  matters are heard in the High Court from 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 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.
section_title: Proposals for Changing the Current System of Adjudicating Matters of Federal Law in American Samoa Remain Controversial
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Concerns with White- Collar Crime Led to Discussions in the Mid- 1990s on Changing the System for Adjudicating Matters of Federal Law in American Samoa
paragraphs: 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. 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. As a result of this request, a team from DOJ  spent 3 months assessing the problem of white-collar crime in American  Samoa and completed its report in December 1994. 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 concern was expressed over increased federal  presence, the desire to retain self-determination regarding their 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.
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  transporting them between American Samoa and Hawaii. 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. 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.
section_title: Concerns about Human Trafficking and Federal Grant-Related Corruption Have Heightened Law Enforcement Focus on American Samoa
paragraphs: While the mid-1990’s legislative proposals were primarily concerned with  white-collar crime in American Samoa, more recently, different types of  criminal activities have emerged. Prior to 1999, FBI officials told us that  allegations of criminal activity in American Samoa were investigated by  agents based in the 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.  This  2001 case involved about 200 Chinese and Vietnamese victims who were  held in a garment factory, and 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.
In December 2004, we found that American Samoa’s failure to complete  single audits, 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.  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. 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  regulations governing federal grant awards. 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 of American Samoa, the Director of the  Department of Education of American Samoa, the Director of the  Department of Health and Social Services for American Samoa, and the  Director of the School Lunch Program for American Samoa. 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, 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.
section_title: Reasons Offered for Changing the Current System Focus Principally on the Difficulties of Adjudicating Matters of Federal Law and Greater Access to Justice
paragraphs: 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 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.
subsections: section_title: Logistical Challenges Related to American Samoa’s Remote Location
paragraphs: 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  Honolulu, Hawaii. 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 also 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. See figure 2 showing the  distances between American Samoa and CNMI, Guam, Hawaii, and  Washington, D.C.
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  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  justice.  Some stated in the February 2006 public hearing held by the  Fono 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 of American Samoa 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 Samoa 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.
section_title: Comments from Group Discussions and E-mail Responses Reflect Some of the Same Reasons Offered for Changing the Current System
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Reasons Offered Against Changing the Current Judicial System Focus Principally on Preserving the Culture and Traditions of American Samoa and Concerns about Juries
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Preservation of Local Culture and Traditions
paragraphs: During the February 2006 Fono hearings, 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. 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 were  established in American Samoa, federal judges, 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 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.
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 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.
section_title: Concerns about Juries
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: Comments from Group Discussions and E-mail Responses Reflect Some of the Same Reasons Offered Against Changing the Current System
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: Based on our review of legislative proposals considered during the mid- 1990s 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.
subsections: section_title: Three Scenarios Present Different Structures and Operational Issues to Be Resolved
paragraphs: 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:  (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 table 5. 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:  (1) what jurisdiction would be granted to the court;    (2) what type of courthouse facility and detention arrangements would be  needed and to what standards, including security standards; and   (3) 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.  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 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. CJA panel attorneys are designated  or approved by the court to furnish legal representation for those  defendants who are financially unable to obtain counsel.
Physical facilities:  Under this scenario, 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. 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 Committee 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.
subsections: section_title: Scenario 2: Establishing a District Court in American Samoa That Would Be a Division of the District of Hawaii
paragraphs: This scenario would create a new division of American Samoa within the  District of Hawaii. 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  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 judges that would serve in the  court and the degree to which resources 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.
section_title: Scenario 3: Expanding the Federal Jurisdiction of the High Court of American Samoa
paragraphs: 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  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 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 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 States 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. 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.
section_title: Potential Cost Elements Subject to Considerable Uncertainties
paragraphs: 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.  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.
subsections: section_title: Court Construction and Agency Rental Costs Would be Comparatively High
paragraphs: 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, based on  requirements similar to an existing build-to-suit lease prospectus for a new  courthouse in CNMI. 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. 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  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.
section_title: Judicial Branch Costs Include Judges, Court Staff, and Federal Defender
paragraphs: For scenarios 1 and 2, AOUSC officials provided information related to  four types of costs:   (1) district court costs,   (2) probation and pretrial services costs, and  (3) federal defender office costs.
subsections: section_title: Scenario 1 Costs
paragraphs: 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, 1 court reporter, and recruitment  and training costs. 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.
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). 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.
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. 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.
section_title: Scenario 2 Costs
paragraphs: District Court costs: According to AOUSC, the estimated district court  costs for scenario 2 could be similar to the estimated costs for scenario 1.   AOUSC officials 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.
section_title: Executive Branch Costs Include Federal Prosecution and Security Costs
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Attorney’s Office Costs
paragraphs: 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.  Information technology costs were estimated at $0.1 million for equipment  and the operation and maintenance of equipment. Space and facilities  costs range between $1.3 million and $1.4 million and include the  operation and maintenance of facilities and rent to GSA 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.
section_title: U.S. Marshals Service Costs
paragraphs: 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. 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). 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  on the wide-area network to American Samoa. Space and facilities costs  were estimated between $1.1 million and $1.3 million for rent, plus  variable defendant detention facility housing costs.
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. 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.
section_title: Potential Funding Sources Associated with Implementing the Different Scenarios
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In May 2008, we requested comments on a draft of this report from the  Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,  the Department of the Interior,  the Department of Justice, the General Services Administration, and  officials representing the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of  the government of American Samoa. The Administrative Office of the U.S.  Courts and the Department of Justice provided technical comments, which  we have incorporated into the report as appropriate. For the Department  of Justice, we received comments from the Bureau of Prisons, the Federal  Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S Marshals Service.  The Bureau of  Prisons recommended that the current judicial system in American Samoa  be improved—although no specific scenario was endorsed—due to  concerns regarding public corruption, the crime rate, and the cost and  inconvenience involved in transporting officials, witnesses, and prisoners  to courts so far away from American Samoa. The Honolulu Division of the  Federal Bureau of Investigation recommended that the District of Hawaii  be provided additional resources and designated as the proper venue for  federal cases arising in American Samoa, given the small pool of jurors,  logistical challenges of permanently stationing federal personnel in  American Samoa, and the lack of institutional infrastructure to sustain a  federal district court in American Samoa. The U.S. Marshals Service stated  it supported scenario 1 and added that that scenario 2 would place a strain  on its current prisoner transportation system and be extremely difficult for  the Hawaii district office to staff due to the lack of infrastructure and  detention space.  In addition to the technical comments received, the  Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Department of the Interior,  and the Office of the Governor of American Samoa provided official letters  for inclusion in the report.  These letters can be seen in appendixes II, III,  and IV, respectively.
We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General and Secretary  of the Interior, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,  Administrator of the General Services Administration, Governor of  American Samoa, President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of the  Legislature of American Samoa, Chief Justice of the High Court of  American Samoa, and interested congressional committees. The report  will be available on the GAO Web site at http://gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please  contact me at 202-512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. Staff acknowledgements are listed in appendix IX.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
subsections: section_title: Objectives, Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: We examined the unique judicial structure of American Samoa and  identified issues associated with establishing a federal court in American  Samoa. Specifically, the objectives of our review were to discuss: (1) the current system and structure for 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) the description of 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, 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.
To address these objectives, we reviewed historical documents,  congressional testimonies, law review articles, previous studies, and cost  data from and conducted interviews with U.S. government officials from  the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), including the  Federal Judicial Center, Office of Defender Services, and Probation and  Pretrial Services; headquarters and field officials from the Department of  Interior’s (DOI) Office of Insular Affairs and Inspector General; officials  from Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, Criminal  Division, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), Bureau of Prisons,  and headquarters and field officials from the U.S. Marshal Service (USMS)  and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); headquarters and field officials  from the General Services Administration (GSA); officials from the U.S.  Attorneys offices for CNMI, Guam, Hawaii, and USVI; headquarters and  field officials from the Inspector General offices of the Departments of  Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Transportation, and Health  and Human Services; officials and judges from the Ninth Circuit; and  officials and judges from the U.S. District Court of  Hawaii, the District  Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, the District Court of Guam, and  the District Court of the Virgin Islands.
Further, we reviewed historical documents, legal decisions, and court  statistical data.  We also conducted interviews with government officials  from the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government and  residents of American Samoa, including the Governor’s Office, High Court  of American Samoa, Fono, Office of Samoan Affairs, Controller’s Office,  Office of Territorial and International Criminal Intelligence and Drug  Enforcement, Attorney General’s Office, and Public Defender’s Office.  Also, we reviewed relevant legal review articles and position papers and  conducted interviews with recognized legal experts on territorial  governance issues. These experts were identified through our literature  review and based on their having published work in the area of territorial  judicial systems, and through our interviews with and information  collected from federal government and territorial government officials.  The experts contacted were not intended to be representative of all expert  opinion on American Samoa judicial issues, but were contacted because  they could provide insights on territorial governance issues in general.
We conducted this 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.
section_title: Group Discussions and Public Comments
paragraphs: To obtain insight regarding public views related to objectives 2 and 3,  during our October 2007 trip to American Samoa we conducted an open  forum of college students and the general public and held group  discussions with members of the American Samoa Bar Association,  American Samoa Chamber of Commerce, and Common Cause of  American Samoa.
We also established an e-mail account (i.e., americansamoa@gao.gov) and  received 62 comments from October 2007 to January 2008 regarding the  general public’s views on possible scenarios for establishing a federal  court in American Samoa or expanding the federal jurisdiction of the High  Court of American Samoa. At all discussions and interviews in American  Samoa we distributed flyers (see fig. 3) which solicited views to the e-mail  account regarding the possible scenarios for establishing a federal court in  American Samoa or expanding the federal jurisdiction of the High Court of  American Samoa.
Emails received were included in our analysis, except those which did not  address the issue of a federal court or only posed questions without  further elaboration. We did not independently evaluate the merits of the  respondents’ comments. However, we did group and list the comments by  topic. With some exceptions, such as responses that were irrelevant or  unclear, substantially all of the comments received were categorized. To  ensure inclusiveness and avoid subjectivity in presenting the comments,  we did not eliminate any comments, even though the comments perhaps  were the same as (or very similar to) comments made by another  respondent.
The open forum, group discussions, and e-mails were designed to provide  broader insight regarding American Samoan public views regarding the  establishment of a federal court. Because these comments are based on a  nongeneralizable sample of individuals, they cannot be used to make  inferences about the American Samoan population overall. While these  views cannot be generalized to the population of American Samoa as a  whole, they provided us with a better understanding of the range of issues  that were important to the members of the local community.
section_title: Potential Cost Elements
paragraphs: To address objective 4 on potential cost estimates establishing a federal  court in American Samoa, we obtained estimated cost information for  scenarios 1 and 2 from federal agencies that would be involved in  establishing a federal court.  This included obtaining cost information  related to three areas: (1) court construction and rent from GSA, (2)  judicial branch agency costs from AOUSC, and (3) executive branch  agency costs from EOUSA and USMS.  To the extent possible, for  scenarios 1 and 2 we obtained agency estimates of the relevant cost  elements, including build-to-lease construction costs, agency rental fees,  salaries and benefits, operational costs, information technology and  equipment costs, and space and facility costs.  Since the court scenarios  were hypothetical and the exact details of the jurisdiction, staffing, and  physical facilities are not known, the estimated costs cannot be aggregated  to obtain a precise estimate of the total costs for the scenarios. Further,  we did not ask GSA, AOUSC, EOUSA, or USMS to estimate the costs of  scenario 3 since this would be a unique structure and the federal agencies  would have no existing federal structure upon which to estimate costs. To  assess the reliability of the estimated costs for scenarios 1 and 2, we talked  with agency officials knowledgeable about how the estimates were  developed and reviewed relevant documentation, such as building surveys  and agency budget documents. We found the data for scenarios 1 and 2  sufficiently reliable to provide estimates of the possible future costs for  these scenarios for establishing a federal court in American Samoa, with  limitations as noted below.
subsections: section_title: Court Construction and Agency Rental Cost Estimates Limitations
paragraphs: Based on preliminary estimates and on hypothetical requirements similar  to a proposed new courthouse in CNMI, GSA officials stated that the rough  estimate of construction costs would be approximately $56 million and  that the resulting agency rental fees based on the amortization of the  construction loan might range from $80 to 90 per square foot, given a  projected court construction award date of March 1, 2010. GSA and other  agencies officials told us that these initial estimated costs may deviate  widely from final construction costs for several reasons:   (1) more detailed cost estimates are not available until later stages of  (2) the condition of the undetermined site is unknown;  (3) prices in the construction market may escalate beyond what has been  (4) the cost adjustment index used for American Samoa, which accounts  for 29 percent of the projected construction costs, is almost 10 years  old and relied on limited expert opinion; and   (5) American Samoa lacks local skilled labor and finished materials and  the shipping and commodity costs at the time of construction are  unknown.  These factors would influence final construction costs, and  thus agency rental costs.
section_title: Judicial Branch Cost Estimate Limitations
paragraphs: (1) Salaries and operational expenses were based on costs from fiscal  years 2007 and 2008 data and would need to be reevaluated at the time  a courthouse was projected to be built for inflationary and other cost  escalation factors.  (2) While CNMI and Guam court costs were used to estimate some court  costs, the actual cost variation between American Samoa and the other  territorial costs is unknown.  (3) Because reliable estimates of the number of civil and criminal cases  were not known, AOUSC officials based their personnel and benefits  and operational and information technology cost estimates for  probation and pretrial services 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. AOUSC 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.  (4) Rental costs were based on GSA space requirements estimated for the  proposed courthouse in CNMI.
section_title: Executive Branch Cost Estimate Limitations
subsections: section_title: U.S. Attorney Cost Estimate Limitations
paragraphs: (1) Because reliable estimates of the number of criminal and civil cases  were not known, the U.S. Attorney’s cost data for scenario 1 non- personnel costs were based on actual fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year  2006 expenditure and allotment obligations for the U.S. Attorney’s  Office for the District of Guam.  Personnel costs were based on  modular costs provided in the fiscal year 2008 President’s budget  request to Congress.   (2) For scenario 2, first year modular personnel costs represent partial  year costs, whereas second year modular costs represent full-year  costs.  (3) Rental costs for the U.S. Attorney’s Office were based on GSA space  requirements estimated for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the proposed  CNMI courthouse.
section_title: USMS Cost Estimate Limitations
paragraphs: (1) USMS officials assumed that defendant or prisoner transportation  costs for a district court in American Samoa are unknown; however,  the officials estimated that it would be about the same as costs in the  District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands for fiscal year 2007— approximately 65 prisoners received per year and 104 court  productions per year from federal detention facilities in Hawaii to  American Samoa. If the workload in American Samoa is less or more,  then estimated costs will be affected accordingly.  (2) USMS officials assumed there would be no local detention space to  house defendants or prisoners, so air transportation costs to federal  detention facilities were included. Commercial airline rates were used  since the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System does not  extend its flights to American Samoa. USMS officials said that  commercial airline regulations and costs could not be specified under  all defendant or prisoner transport circumstances.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of the Governor, American Samoa
section_title: Appendix V: History and Development of the Judicial System in American Samoa
subsections: section_title: Overview
paragraphs: American Samoa consists of seven islands located about 2,600 miles  southwest of Hawaii and about 1,600 miles from New Zealand.  American  Samoa Department of Commerce data indicate that in 2005, the population  of American Samoa was about 65,500.  Ethnically, Samoans constitute the  vast majority of the population in American Samoa; about 31 percent of  the population was born in the independent nation of Samoa.
The Samoan islands were originally settled about 1000 B.C. by  Polynesians.  During the nineteenth century, Germany, Great Britain, and  the United States developed commercial and military pursuits in Samoa,  and in 1899 the three powers divided their authority over the islands, as  Germany and Great Britain renounced all rights to Tutuila and the other  Samoan islands east of Longitude 171 degrees west of Greenwich, and the  United States renounced all rights to the western islands.  On February 19,  1900, President McKinley issued an Executive Order placing control of the  islands under the authority of the Department of the Navy, and on the  same day, the Secretary of the Navy issued an order providing that the  islands were established into a Naval Station, to be known as the Naval  Station, Tutuila, and to be under the command of a Commandant.  On  April 17, 1900, the high chiefs of Tutuila formally ceded the islands of  Tutuila and Aunuu to the United States, and on July 16, 1904, the high chief  of Manua ceded the islands of Tau, Olosega, Ofu, and Rose to the United  States.  The Deeds of Cession were not formally accepted by the United  States until 1929 when Congress, by joint resolution, accepted and ratified  them and provided that “until Congress shall provide for the government  of such islands, all civil, judicial, and military powers shall be vested in  such person or persons and shall be exercised in such manner as the  President of the United States shall direct….”
In 1951, President Truman transferred the authority to govern American  Samoa from the Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary of the Interior.   The Secretary of the Interior subsequently issued an order to delimit the  extent and nature of the authority of the American Samoa government,  which provided for a Governor and an independent judicial branch.   American Samoa ratified a Constitution, which went into effect on  October 17, 1960, and a revised Constitution went into effect on July 1,  1967.  The Constitution provides for legislative, judicial, and executive  branches.  The legislature, called the Fono, consists of a House of  Representatives and Senate.  The House of Representatives is composed  of twenty members popularly elected from representative districts.  The  Senate is composed of eighteen members, each of whom must be matai  and elected in accordance with Samoan custom by the city councils of the  counties that the member is to represent.  The 1967 Constitution provided  that the executive branch was to consist of a Governor, to be appointed by  the Secretary of the Interior.  In 1977, the Secretary of the Interior  superseded this provision by issuing an order providing that the Governor  and Lieutenant Governor were to be popularly elected.  The Governor’s  veto power is similar to that of the U.S. President, except that if the  Governor vetoes a bill and the legislature overrides the veto with a two- thirds majority of each house, the Governor, if still disapproving of the bill,  may submit it to the Secretary of the Interior, who has the ultimate  authority to decide if the legislation becomes law.  The Constitution also  provides for a judicial branch, which consists of the High Court, local  district courts, and other courts that may be created by law.  In 1983,  Congress provided that the Constitution of American Samoa may only be  amended by an act of Congress.
American Samoa has limited representation in Congress.  In 1970, the  American Samoa legislature created the Office of the American Samoa  Delegate-at-Large, which was to provide American Samoa with official  representation in Washington, D.C.  In 1978, Congress recognized the  delegate from American Samoa and accorded the delegate status  equivalent to that of the delegates from Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands.   As such, the delegate from American Samoa has all congressional  privileges, including a vote in committee, except a vote in Congress as a  whole.
Although certain characteristics of the court system in American Samoa  have been modified over time, the court system continues to resemble the  system established by the first Commandant of the Naval Station in 1900.   Although the village courts are no longer used, the High Court and the  local district court remain in place, with the same basic division of  jurisdiction, such that the High Court has jurisdiction over major local  matters, including matters involving land and matai titles, and the local  district court has jurisdiction over minor local matters, such as  misdemeanor criminal cases and civil cases in which the amount in  controversy does not exceed $5,000. While new avenues to appeal  decisions of the High Court have been established, the appellate process  within the American Samoa judiciary remains similar, with the appellate  division of the High Court maintaining jurisdiction over decisions of the  other High Court divisions and the local district court.  Further, although  the judges were initially appointed by the Governor, since 1931, the Chief  Justice of the High Court has been appointed by the President’s delegate,  first the Secretary of the Navy and then the Secretary of the Interior.
section_title: Jurisdiction
paragraphs: In 1900, the first Commandant of the Naval Station, Commander Benjamin  Tilley, issued Regulation No. 5, which established a system of courts in  American Samoa.  The system of courts consisted of village courts, local  district courts, and the High Court.  The village courts had jurisdiction  over minor civil and criminal cases involving Samoans.  The local district  courts had jurisdiction over more significant cases and cases involving  non-Samoans.  The High Court had exclusive jurisdiction over major  cases involving sums over $250 or criminal penalties over 6 months and all  cases involving real property, treason, murder, and offenses committed  within the Naval Station.  According to a former Naval Governor of  American Samoa, the village and local district courts had a case load  generally consisting of cases involving offenses such as acts of physical  violence, burglary, larceny, sex offenses, desertion, failure to pay taxes,  traffic offenses, trespass, nonsupport of wife, and disorderly conduct.  At  the same time, the High Court mostly handled land and matai title  disputes.
In 1952, the judiciary of American Samoa underwent a major  reorganization.  The village courts were no longer used, and their  jurisdiction was transferred to the local district courts.  The High Court  was reorganized into three divisions: appellate, probate, and trial.
The structure of the High Court has continued to change over time, and  jurisdiction over certain matters has been transferred between divisions.   By 1969, local law had added to the High Court a fourth division, the land  and titles division, which was to handle disputes related to land and matai  titles.  In 1979, local law eliminated the probate division and transferred  such jurisdiction to the trial division of the High Court.  In 2000, local law  established a family, drug and alcohol court division.  The law authorized  the Chief Justice to transfer from the trial division of the High Court or the  local district court to the family, drug and alcohol court division juvenile  cases, domestic relations cases, certain domestic violence cases, and  certain alcohol and substance abuse-related cases.
In addition to restructuring the High Court, local law has also granted the  High Court additional jurisdiction, such as over certain admiralty and  maritime matters.  In 1975, in response to Vessel Fijian Swift v. Trial  Division of the High Court of American Samoa, in which the High Court  held that it did not have in rem admiralty jurisdiction absent an express  grant of such jurisdiction, local law granted the High Court jurisdiction,  both in personam and in rem, over admiralty and maritime matters in  common law.  In 1982, the U.S. District Court of Hawaii confirmed that  the High Court could exercise both in rem and in personam jurisdiction in  admiralty and maritime cases.  Although the High Court has jurisdiction  over matters of admiralty and maritime common law, the High Court does  not necessarily have jurisdiction over actions arising under federal  maritime statutes, unless explicitly provided by federal law.  Federal law  has so provided in, for example, the statute governing maritime  commercial instruments and liens.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, and again in the early 2000s, federal law  also provided that the High Court has jurisdiction over cases arising under  certain other federal statutes.  For example, the High Court has been  granted jurisdiction over cases arising under certain federal statutes  governing grain standards, pesticide control, animal welfare, animal  and plant health, and poultry and meat inspection.
Thus, current law provides that the High Court and local district court  have jurisdiction over all local matters and certain federal matters.  The  High Court is composed of the trial; land and titles; family, drug and  alcohol; and appellate divisions.  The trial division has jurisdiction over  civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000 (except  land and matai title matters), criminal cases in which a felony is charged,  admiralty and maritime matters, juvenile cases, probate, domestic  relations except adoptions and certain child and spousal support cases, all  writs, and any matter not otherwise provided for in statute.  The land and  titles division has jurisdiction over all matters relating to matai titles and  all controversies relating to land.  The family, drug and alcohol court  division has jurisdiction over the following types of cases transferred from  the trial division or the local district court: juvenile cases, including traffic  offenses; domestic relations cases; domestic violence crimes except  homicides and other Class A felonies; and criminal cases in which alcohol  or other substance abuse is involved, including serious traffic offenses,  except cases charging possession of a controlled substance with intent to  distribute.  The appellate division has appellate jurisdiction over all final  decisions of the trial and land and titles divisions, appellate jurisdiction  over all local district court and administrative decisions, and appeals of  other matters specifically provided for by statute.  The local district court  retains jurisdiction over civil cases in which the amount in controversy  does not exceed $5,000 (except land and matai title matters), criminal  cases in which the offense charged is a misdemeanor or any offense  punishable by not more than 1 year of imprisonment, traffic cases except  those involving a felony, initial appearances and preliminary examinations  in all criminal cases, adoptions and certain child and spousal support  cases, and certain public health offenses.
section_title: Appeals
paragraphs: Beginning in 1900, the appellate division of the High Court had appellate  jurisdiction over decisions of the trial division of the High Court and over  decisions of the local district courts, and when the land and titles and  family, drug, and alcohol court divisions were established within the High  Court, the appellate division of the High Court assumed appellate  jurisdiction over decisions of those divisions.  Initially, the local district  courts had appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the village courts, but  once the village courts became defunct in 1952, the local district court lost  its appellate jurisdiction.  As such, current law provides that the appellate  division of the High Court has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the  trial, land and titles, and family, drug, and alcohol court divisions of the  High Court, as well as appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the local  district court accompanied by a stenographic record and appeals based on  a question of law.  All decisions of the local district court in cases without  a stenographic record may be appealed to the trial division of the High  Court for de novo review.
The Secretary of the Interior may also exercise appellate jurisdiction over  decisions of the High Court.  In June 1985, the Church of Jesus Christ of  Latter-Day Saints requested that the Secretary of the Interior intervene and  overturn a decision of the High Court regarding a piece of land in  American Samoa.  Though he declined to intervene, finding that such an  intervention would undermine the U.S. policy of fostering greater self- government and self-sufficiency, the Secretary of the Interior stated that  he had the authority to review the decision of the High Court.  When the  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints subsequently challenged the  constitutionality of the Secretary’s refusal to overturn the High Court  decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit  approved of the Secretary of the Interior’s assertion of authority, stating  that:  The Congress has delegated its judicial authority with  respect to American Samoa to the President, who has in  turn delegated it to the Secretary….  The Congress, that is,  could have, so far as Article III is concerned, provided that  the Secretary himself would exercise the judicial power in  American Samoa.  No doubt, the due process clause of the  Fifth Amendment may qualify this prerogative in some way.   The Secretary might not be able to exercise his authority,  nor perhaps even to retain it in dormancy, in a case to  which he is a party.  But that is a far cry from this case.   Here, there is no claim that the Secretary was interested in  the outcome.  So far as due process is concerned, therefore,  he could have decided it himself and there can be no cause  of action because the court that did so was subservient to  him.
A decision of the High Court may not only be appealed to the Secretary of  the Interior, it may also be collaterally challenged by filing an action in the  U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Secretary of the  Interior for failing to administer American Samoa in accordance with the  U.S. Constitution and federal law.  This approach was first tested in King  v. Morton in the mid-1970s.  In that case, an individual charged in the  High Court of American Samoa with willfully failing to pay his income tax  moved for, and was denied, a jury trial.  He subsequently commenced an  action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the  Secretary of the Interior, requesting that the court declare unconstitutional  the Secretary of the Interior’s administration of American Samoa in such a  way that denied him the right to trial by jury.  The district court dismissed  the case for lack of jurisdiction, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the  District of Columbia Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the  District of Columbia could have jurisdiction under the federal question or  writ of mandamus statutes, stating that the district court is “competent to  judge the Secretary’s administration of the government of American  Samoa by constitutional standards and, if necessary, to order the Secretary  to take appropriate measures to correct any constitutional deficiencies.”   The court again found that district court is competent to hear challenges  to the constitutionality of the Secretary of the Interior’s administration of  American Samoa in Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus  Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Hodel.  In that case, the U.S. District Court  for the District of Columbia found that, though the Church of Jesus Christ  of Latter-Day Saints failed to raise a federal question, the court had  jurisdiction to hear valid claims under the Constitution or federal law  against the Secretary of the Interior regarding his administration of  American Samoa.  Thus, current law provides that decisions of the  appellate division of the High Court may be appealed either directly to the  Secretary of the Interior or challenged collaterally in the U.S. District  Court for the District of Columbia, whose decisions may be appealed to  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and then to  the U.S. Supreme Court.
section_title: Judges
paragraphs: Beginning in 1900, the Commandant of the Naval Station was the President  of the High Court and could appoint others to serve as judges.  In 1903,  the Commandant created the Office of Native Affairs, which was to  supervise the judiciary.  The Secretary of Native Affairs, a naval officer,  became the chief judge of the local district courts, as well as serving as the  legal advisor to the Governor, sheriff of the local police force, and  prosecutor.  Samoans appointed by the Governor sat as judges on the  local district courts and magistrates of the village courts, with lifetime  tenure, subject to removal only for misconduct.
From 1931 until 1951, the Chief Justice of the High Court was appointed by  the Secretary of the Navy.  In 1931, the Governor separated the functions  of the judge and prosecutor in the Chief Justice and Attorney General.   The Chief Justice was to be a civilian appointed by the Secretary of the  Navy, and the Attorney General position was filled by a naval officer.  At  this point, the Governor ceased to be the President of the High Court, and  the Chief Justice was appointed by, and directly accountable to, the  Secretary of the Navy.  The Chief Justice was able to select associate  judges from among the district judges to assist with cases in the High  Court.
Since 1951, when administration of American Samoa was transferred from  the Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary of the Interior, the Chief Justice  has been appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, and since 1962, the  Associate Justice has also been appointed by the Secretary of the  Interior.  In the 1970s, the Secretary of the Interior began appointing  federal judges to serve as Acting Associate Justices.  About once each  year, the Secretary coordinates with the Pacific Islands Committee of the  Ninth Circuit to appoint judges to travel to American Samoa to hear  appellate cases for approximately a week at a time.
Current law provides that the Chief Justice and Associate Justice are  appointed by the Secretary of the Interior and hold lifetime tenure for  good behavior, but may be removed by the Secretary of the Interior for  cause.  The Chief Justice and Associate Justice must be trained in law.   The associate judges are appointed by the Governor, upon the  recommendation of the Chief Justice and confirmation of the Senate, and  hold lifetime tenure, except that they may be removed by the Chief Justice  for cause.  The associate judges are not required to be trained in law,  but rather are appointed based on their knowledge of Samoan custom and  traditions.
Also according to current law, the appellate division of the High Court is  composed of the Chief Justice, Associate Justice, Acting Associate  Justices, and associate judges.  Sessions are held before three justices  and two associate judges, and the presence of two justices and one  associate judge is necessary to constitute a quorum and decide a case.  In  the case of a difference of opinion, the opinion of the two justices prevails,  except in appeals from the land and title division, in which the opinion of  the majority of five associate judges prevails.  The land and title division  is composed of the Chief Justice, Associate Justice, and the associate  judges.  For land matters, sessions are held before one justice and two  associate judges, and the presence of one justice and one associate judge  is necessary to constitute a quorum and decide a case.  In the case of a  difference of opinion, the opinion of the justice prevails.  For matai title  matters, sessions are held before one justice and four associate judges,  and the presence of one justice and three associate judges is necessary to  constitute a quorum and decide a case.  In the case of a difference of  opinion, the opinion of the majority of the four associate judges prevails,  and if there is a tie, the justice casts the deciding vote.  The trial division  is composed of the Chief Justice, Associate Justice, and the associate  judges.  Sessions are held before one justice and two associate judges,  and the presence of one justice and one associate judge is necessary to  constitute a quorum and decide a case.  In the case of a difference of  opinion, the opinion of the justice prevails.  In the family, drug and  alcohol court division, sessions are held before the Chief Justice,  Associate Justice or Acting Associate Justice, and two associate judges,  and the presence of one justice and one associate judge constitutes a  quorum for the trial and determination of the case.
The local district court judge is appointed by the Governor, upon the  recommendation of the Chief Justice and confirmation by the Senate, and  holds lifetime tenure, although he may be removed by the Chief Justice for  cause.  The district court judge must also be trained in law.
section_title: Appendix VI: History and Development of the Judicial System of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
subsections: section_title: Overview
paragraphs: The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a chain of 14 islands  stretching north from Guam, has a total land area of about 185 square  miles.  The three largest islands are Saipan, Tinian, and Rota.  Saipan is  about 3,300 miles from Hawaii, or about three-quarters of the distance  from Hawaii to the Philippines.  According to U.S. Census Bureau Data for  2000, the population of the Northern Mariana Islands is about 69,000,  composed primarily of Asians, including Filipinos and Chinese, and Pacific  Islanders, including Chamorros, Carolinians, and other Micronesians.   About 58 percent of individuals residing in the Northern Mariana Islands  are foreign born, and about 57 percent are not U.S. citizens.  English,  Chamorro, and Carolinian are the official languages of the Northern  Mariana Islands.
The Chamorro people are believed to have arrived in the Northern Mariana  Islands about 1500 B.C.  In 1565, Spain claimed the Mariana Islands as a  possession, and in the mid-seventeenth century, Spain began to colonize  the islands.  During the time of Spanish colonization, the Chamorro  population of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands declined  significantly—from between 50,000 and 100,000 when the Spanish first  arrived in the mid-sixteenth century to around 1,500 by the time of the  Spanish census in 1783.  In the late-seventeenth century, Spain removed  almost all of the population of the Northern Mariana Islands, with the  exception of a small population on Rota that evaded the Spanish, to Guam,  so that the islands remained nearly uninhabited until the nineteenth  century.  In the mid-nineteenth century, people from the Caroline Islands  began to migrate to the Northern Mariana Islands, and in the late- nineteenth century, the Chamorros were allowed to return from Guam.
During the twentieth century, the Northern Mariana Islands passed under  the control of several foreign powers.  After the Spanish-American War,  Spain sold the Northern Mariana Islands to Germany.  In 1914, Japan  occupied the Northern Mariana Islands and became formally responsible  for the islands in 1920.  In 1944, the United States invaded the Northern  Mariana Islands and defeated the Japanese.  Subsequently, in 1947, the  Northern Mariana Islands, along with the Caroline and Marshall Islands,  entered into a trusteeship called the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,  to be administered by the United States.  The Northern Mariana Islands,  however, after an unsuccessful attempt to be integrated with Guam,  sought a separate relationship with the United States.  By 1972, the  Northern Mariana Islands had entered into separate status negotiations  with the United States, and in 1975 the Northern Mariana Islands and the  United States concluded a Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the  Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of  America, making the Northern Mariana Islands a “self-governing  commonwealth … in political union with and under the sovereignty of the  United States of America.”  The Covenant granted citizenship to residents  of the Northern Mariana Islands and stated that the Northern Mariana  Islands would approve a constitution that would provide for a local  legislature, a popularly-elected Governor, and a local court system.  The  Covenant also provided for a District Court for the Northern Mariana  Islands.  In 1977, the Northern Mariana Islands adopted the Constitution  of the Northern Mariana Islands, and in 1986 the Trusteeship Agreement  establishing the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands was dissolved,  making the Covenant fully effective.
The court system in the Northern Mariana Islands has developed in such a  way that, over time, the local courts were granted additional responsibility  and autonomy.  For example, although the district court initially had  jurisdiction over certain local matters, such jurisdiction was transferred  from the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands to the local  Superior Court.  Similarly, appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the  Superior Court was transferred from the District Court for the Northern  Mariana Islands to the newly-created local Supreme Court.  Further, the  appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit  over decisions of the Supreme Court expired, so that the U.S. Supreme  Court has the same appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Supreme  Court of the Northern Mariana Islands as it does over decisions of the  highest state courts.  The current court system of the Northern Mariana  Islands is composed of a District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands,  which has the jurisdiction of a U.S. district court and a bankruptcy court;  a local Superior Court, which handles local matters; and a Supreme Court,  which has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Superior Court.
section_title: Jurisdiction
paragraphs: Beginning in the late 1970s, the District Court for the Northern Mariana  Islands had the original jurisdiction of a district court, as well as original  jurisdiction over certain local criminal and civil cases and appellate  jurisdiction over certain criminal and civil cases.  Pursuant to the  Covenant, in 1977 Congress established the District Court for the Northern  Mariana Islands, granting the court the jurisdiction of a district court of  the United States, except that cases arising under the Constitution or  federal law had no minimum sum or value of the matter in controversy.   The federal law also granted the district court original jurisdiction over all  cases that the Constitution or laws of the Northern Mariana Islands did not  vest in a local court.  Further, the law granted the district court appellate  jurisdiction as the Constitution and laws of the Northern Mariana Islands  provided.
Pursuant to the federal law, the Northern Mariana Islands immediately  acted to vest limited jurisdiction in the local trial court and to define the  appellate jurisdiction of the district court.  The Constitution of the  Northern Mariana Islands, adopted in 1977, established the  Commonwealth Trial Court and granted it jurisdiction over all actions  involving land in the Commonwealth, other civil actions in which the value  of the matter in controversy did not exceed $5,000, and criminal actions in  which the defendant, if convicted, could be fined no more than $5,000 or  imprisoned for a term of no more than 5 years.  The Constitution also  provided that, at least 5 years after the Constitution has been in effect, the  legislature could vest additional civil and criminal jurisdiction in the  Commonwealth Trial Court.  In 1978, the legislature of the Northern  Mariana Islands also granted the district court appellate jurisdiction over  all final judgments, final orders, and final decrees in criminal and civil  cases.  Thus, at that time, the district court had original jurisdiction over  major local criminal and civil cases, as well as the jurisdiction of a federal  district court, and appellate jurisdiction over final decisions in criminal  and civil cases.
During the 1980s, significant changes were made to the jurisdiction of the  courts of the Northern Mariana Islands, as the government of the Northern  Mariana Islands vested additional jurisdiction in the local courts, thereby  divesting the district court of such jurisdiction.  In 1982, the Northern  Mariana Islands vested additional jurisdiction in the Commonwealth Trial  Court, passing a law such that, effective January 1983, the trial court had  original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases arising under the laws of  the Northern Mariana Islands.  Further, in 1988, the Northern Mariana  Islands renamed the local trial court and expanded the jurisdiction of the  newly-named Superior Court to include all civil actions, in law and in  equity, and all criminal actions.  The Northern Mariana Islands also  established a Supreme Court and provided that, effective in May 1989, the  Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction over judgments and orders of  the Superior Court.  As a result of these changes, the district court was  divested of its original, as well as appellate, jurisdiction over local matters.   In 1984, Congress also changed the jurisdiction of the district court by  redefining the jurisdiction to be that of a district court of the United States,  to include diversity jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of a bankruptcy  court.
section_title: Appeals
subsections: section_title: Appeals from the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands to the U.S. Court of Appeals
paragraphs: From 1977 until 1984, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had  appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the appellate division of the  District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands and decisions arising  under federal law of the trial division of the District Court, and the  appellate division of the District Court had appellate jurisdiction over  decisions arising under local law of the trial division of the District Court.   The 1977 federal law implementing the Covenant provided that portions of  title 28 of the U.S. Code that apply to Guam or the District Court of Guam  apply to the Northern Mariana Islands or the District Court for the  Northern Mariana Islands, except as otherwise provided in Article IV of  the Covenant.  Thus, subject to Article IV of the Covenant, which  authorizes the Northern Mariana Islands to determine the appellate  jurisdiction of the district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth  Circuit would have appellate jurisdiction over all final and interlocutory  decisions of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.  In 1980,  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that it did not have  appellate jurisdiction over decisions in cases arising under local law  issued by the trial division of the District Court of the Northern Mariana  Islands; rather, the Northern Mariana Islands, as authorized by Article IV  of the Covenant, had properly vested the appellate division of the District  Court with appellate jurisdiction over such decisions.
In 1984, Congress, disapproving of this holding, repealed the statutory  provision authorizing the Northern Mariana Islands to determine the  appellate jurisdiction of the district court and replaced it with a provision  authorizing the Northern Mariana Islands to determine the appellate  jurisdiction of the district court only over the courts established by the  Constitution and laws of the Northern Mariana Islands.  This amendment  made clear that the Northern Mariana Islands could not grant the appellate  division of the district court appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the  trial division of the district court.  Rather, the appellate division of the  district court had appellate jurisdiction only over decisions of the local  Superior Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had  appellate jurisdiction over all final decisions of the District Court.  The  1984 federal law also codified the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Court  of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over final decisions of the appellate  division of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.  Once the  Supreme Court became operational in 1989, this provision became moot.   Thus, from 1984 until the present, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth  Circuit has had jurisdiction over all final and interlocutory decisions of the  District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.
section_title: Appeals from the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands to the U.S. Supreme Court
paragraphs: From 1977 until 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction  over certain decisions of the District Court for the Northern Mariana  Islands.  The 1977 federal law implementing the Covenant provided that  portions of title 28 of the U.S. Code that applied to Guam or the District  Court of Guam applied to the Northern Mariana Islands or the District  Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, except as otherwise provided in  Article IV of the Covenant, such that the U.S. Supreme Court had  appellate jurisdiction over any decision of the District Court for the  Northern Mariana Islands that held a federal law unconstitutional in a case  in which the United States was a party.
In 1988, however, Congress repealed the provision allowing a direct appeal  to the U.S. Supreme Court from a decision of a district court.  As a result,  current law provides that decisions of the District Court for the Northern  Mariana Islands may not be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
section_title: Appeals from the Superior Court of the Northern Mariana Islands
paragraphs: From 1977 until 1989, decisions of the Superior Court could be appealed to  the appellate division of the District Court for the Northern Mariana  Islands.  The 1977 federal law implementing the Covenant authorized the  Northern Mariana Islands to determine the appellate jurisdiction of the  District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, and in 1978, the Northern  Mariana Islands provided that the district court had appellate jurisdiction  over final decisions in criminal and civil cases.  As noted above, in 1984,  Congress confirmed that final decisions of the appellate division of the  district court could be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth  Circuit, such that decisions of the Superior Court could be appealed first  to the appellate division of the district court and then to the U.S. Court of  Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Once the Supreme Court of the Northern  Mariana Islands became operational in 1989, it had appellate jurisdiction  over decisions of the Superior Court.
section_title: Appeals from the Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands
paragraphs: From 1989 until 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had  appellate jurisdiction over the Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana  Islands.  Federal law provides that the relations between the federal and  local courts with respect to appeals, certiorari, removal of causes, and  writs of habeas corpus are governed by the laws respecting the relations  between the federal and state courts, except that for the first 15 years  following the creation of the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit would have  jurisdiction to review by writ of certiorari the decisions of such court in all  cases involving the Constitution or federal law.  Thus, from 1989 until  2004, the first 15 years of the operation of the Supreme Court of the  Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit  had appellate jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law decided by  the Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands.  In 2004, the  relationship between the Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands  and the federal court system became like that between a state supreme  court and the federal court system.  Of primary importance, final decisions  of the Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands may be reviewed by  the U.S. Supreme Court, at its discretion, by writ of certiorari where the  validity of a treaty or federal law is drawn into question; a territorial  statute is drawn into question on the ground of it being repugnant to the  U.S. Constitution, treaties, or federal law; or any title, right, privilege, or  immunity is specially set up or claimed under the U.S. Constitution,  treaties, federal, or commission held or authority exercised under the  United States.
section_title: Judges
paragraphs: The length of the terms of appointment for judges sitting on the District  Court for the Northern Mariana Islands has increased over time.  In 1977,  federal law provided that the judge for the district court was to be  appointed by the U.S. President with the advice and consent of the Senate  for a term of 8 years and paid the same salary as that of a U.S. district  judge.  The 1984 amendments extended the term of the district judge to  10 years.  Thus, current law provides that the district judge for the  Northern Mariana Islands holds a term of 10 years and is to receive a  salary equal to that of judges of the U.S. district courts.
In addition to the district judge for the Northern Mariana Islands,  additional judges may be assigned to sit on the District Court for the  Northern Mariana Islands, and the population of judges eligible to be  assigned to sit on the court has increased over time.  In 1977, federal law  provided that, whenever such an assignment is necessary for the proper  dispatch of the business of the court, the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit  may assign justices of the High Court of the Trust Territory of the Pacific  Islands or judges of courts of record of the Northern Mariana Islands who  are licensed attorneys in good standing, or a circuit or district judge of the  Ninth Circuit, including a judge of the District Court of Guam who is  appointed by the President; and the Chief Justice of the United States may  assign any other U.S. circuit or district judge with the consent of the  assigned judge and the chief judge of that circuit, to serve temporarily as a  judge for the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.  In 1984,  federal law expanded the population of judges eligible to serve  temporarily as a judge for the district court by authorizing the Chief Judge  of the Ninth Circuit to assign a recalled senior judge of the District Court  of Guam or of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.  Thus,  current law provides that, whenever such an assignment is necessary for  the proper dispatch of the business of the court, the Chief Judge of the  Ninth Circuit may assign justices of the High Court of the Trust Territory  of the Pacific Islands, judges of courts of record of the Northern Mariana  Islands who are licensed attorneys in good standing, a circuit or district  judge of the Ninth Circuit, including a judge of the District Court of Guam  who is appointed by the President, or a recalled senior judge of the  District Court of Guam or of the District Court for the Northern Mariana  Islands; and the Chief Justice of the United States may assign any other  U.S. circuit or district judge with the consent of the assigned judge and the  chief judge of that circuit, to serve temporarily as a judge for the District  Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.
section_title: Appendix VII: History and Development of the Judicial System of Guam
subsections: section_title: Overview
paragraphs: Guam, at 217 square miles, is the largest island in the Northern Pacific.  It  is located about 3,700 miles from Hawaii, or about three-quarters of the  distance from Hawaii to the Philippines.  According to U.S. Census Bureau  data for 2000, the population of Guam is about 155,000.  Guam’s primary  ethnic groups are Chamorro and Filipino, and English and Chamorro are  the dual official languages.
Guam is believed to have been inhabited by the Chamorro people since  about 2000 B.C.  In 1521, Ferdinand Magellan landed on Guam; Spain  claimed Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands as a possession in 1565,  and in the mid-seventeenth century Spain began to colonize the islands.   During the time of Spanish colonization, the Chamorro population of  Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands declined significantly—from  between 50,000 and 100,000 when the Spanish first arrived in the mid- sixteenth century to around 1,500 by the time of the Spanish census in  1783.  After the Spanish-American War, in 1898, the United States took  control of Guam, and the U.S. Navy became responsible for governing  Guam.  In 1941, Japan invaded Guam and occupied the island until 1944,  when American forces recaptured Guam.
In 1950, Congress passed the Organic Act for Guam, making Guam an  unincorporated but organized territory of the United States.  The Organic  Act granted U.S. citizenship to the residents of Guam and organized a  local government, which was to consist of a legislature; a Governor who  would be appointed by the President, with the consent of the U.S. Senate;  and a district court.  Responsibility for the administration of Guam was  subsequently transferred from the Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary  of the Interior, where it remains today.  In 1968, Congress amended the  Organic Act to allow for the popular election of the Governor and  Lieutenant Governor of Guam, and in 1972 Congress granted Guam a  nonvoting delegate to Congress.  Although Congress authorized Guam to  call a constitutional convention to draft a local constitution in 1976, the  proposed constitution was rejected by voters in a referendum.
The court system in Guam has undergone significant changes since 1950.   Congress and the Guam legislature have, over time, increased the  responsibility and autonomy of the courts in Guam.  For example,  although the district court initially had jurisdiction over certain local  matters, such jurisdiction was subsequently transferred from the District  Court of Guam to the local Superior Court.  Similarly, while the District  Court of Guam had appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Superior  Court for a period of time, such jurisdiction was transferred from the  District Court of Guam to the newly-created Supreme Court.  Further, in  order to provide oversight over the new Supreme Court, Congress  originally provided that the U.S. Court of Appeals would have appellate  jurisdiction over decisions of the Supreme Court for 15 years after its  establishment.  However, Congress later repealed this provision, providing  that certain decisions of the Supreme Court may be appealed to the U.S.  Supreme Court, just as are certain decisions of the highest state courts.   The current court system of Guam is composed of a District Court of  Guam, which has the jurisdiction of a U.S. district court and a bankruptcy  court; a local Superior Court, which handles local matters; and a Supreme  Court, which has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Superior  Court.
section_title: Jurisdiction
paragraphs: Beginning in 1950, the District Court of Guam had original jurisdiction  over federal cases and some local cases, as well as appellate jurisdiction  over certain decisions of the local trial court.  In 1950, the Organic Act  established the District Court of Guam and granted the court original  jurisdiction over all cases arising under federal law, as well as all other  cases in Guam not transferred by the Guam legislature to local courts.   The Organic Act also granted the district court appellate jurisdiction to be  determined by the Guam legislature.  The Guam legislature subsequently  reorganized the local court system, granting the local Island Court  jurisdiction over non-felony cases arising under the laws of Guam, certain  felony cases arising under the laws of Guam, all domestic relations and  probate cases, and civil cases in which the amount in controversy did not  exceed $2,000.  Pursuant to the Organic Act, the Guam legislature also  created an appellate division of the district court and provided that the  district court had appellate jurisdiction over certain civil and criminal  decisions of the Island Court.
In 1974, Guam vested additional jurisdiction in the local courts, thereby  divesting the district court of such jurisdiction.  The legislature passed the  Court Reorganization Act, creating a Superior Court, which replaced the  preexisting Island, Police, and Commissioners’ Courts.  The Act provided  the Superior Court with original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases  arising under local law, except for cases also arising under federal law or  pertaining to the Guam territorial income tax.  The Court Reorganization  Act also purported to create a Supreme Court, which was to have  jurisdiction over appeals from the Superior Court, and repealed provisions  of local law governing the appellate jurisdiction of the district court.  The  Supreme Court was not established under this law, however, as the  transfer of appellate jurisdiction from the district court to the Supreme  Court by the Guam legislature was challenged, and the U.S. Court of  Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Organic Act of Guam did not  provide the Guam legislature with the authority to divest the district court  of its appellate jurisdiction.
In response, Congress amended the Organic Act of Guam in 1984 to  authorize the Guam legislature to establish an appellate court and to  confer upon such a court jurisdiction over all cases in Guam over which a  federal district court does not have exclusive jurisdiction.  The federal  law also provided that, prior to the establishment of an appellate court, the  District Court of Guam would continue to exercise appellate jurisdiction  over the local courts of Guam.  The same law expanded the jurisdiction  of the district court to that of a district court of the United States, to  include diversity jurisdiction.  As an earlier law had conferred bankruptcy  jurisdiction on the district court, from 1984 until 1996 the district court  had the jurisdiction of the district court of the United States and a  bankruptcy court of the United States, as well as appellate jurisdiction  over local cases.
The Guam legislature subsequently passed the Frank G. Lujan Memorial  Court Reorganization Act of 1992, which created the Supreme Court of  Guam.  Once the Supreme Court became operational in 1996, the District  Court of Guam was divested of appellate jurisdiction over local matters.   In 2004, federal law amended the Organic Act to codify into federal law the  establishment of the Superior and Supreme Courts of Guam.  As a result,  the District Court of Guam currently has the jurisdiction of a district court  of the United States, including federal question jurisdiction and diversity  jurisdiction, and that of a bankruptcy court of the United States.
section_title: Appeals
subsections: section_title: Appeals from the District Court of Guam to the U.S. Court of Appeals
paragraphs: In general, since the establishment of the District Court of Guam, the U.S.  Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has had appellate jurisdiction over  decisions of the district court.  The Organic Act of 1950 provided that the  Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was to have appellate jurisdiction  over decisions by the district court in all cases arising under federal law,  habeas corpus proceedings, and civil cases in which the value in  controversy exceeds $5,000.  In 1951, Congress repealed this provision  and amended federal law governing the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S.
Courts of Appeals, providing that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had  appellate jurisdiction over all final and interlocutory decisions of the  District Court of Guam.  In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth  Circuit held that its appellate jurisdiction extended to decisions of the  appellate, as well as the trial, division of the District Court of Guam.  In  1984, Congress codified into statute the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S.  Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over the decisions of the appellate  division of the District Court of Guam.  Once the Supreme Court became  operational in 1996 and divested the district court of appellate jurisdiction,  this provision became moot.  Thus, current law provides that final and  interlocutory decisions of the District Court of Guam may be appealed to  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
section_title: Appeals from the District Court of Guam to the U.S. Supreme Court
paragraphs: From 1950 until 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction  over certain decisions of the District Court of Guam.  The Organic Act  provided that any party could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court from a  decision of the district court that held a federal law unconstitutional in a  case in which the United States was a party.  In 1951, although Congress  repealed this provision and amended federal law governing the appellate  jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court, the right of appeal from the District  Court of Guam to the U.S. Supreme Court remained substantively the  same.
In 1988, however, Congress repealed the provision allowing a direct appeal  to the U.S. Supreme Court of a decision of a district court that holds a  federal law unconstitutional in a case in which the United States is a  party.  As a result, current law provides that the decisions of the District  Court of Guam may not be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
section_title: Appeals from the Superior Court of Guam
paragraphs: From 1950 until 1996, the District Court of Guam had appellate jurisdiction  over decisions of the Superior Court.  As noted above, the Organic Act  granted the district court appellate jurisdiction to be determined by the  Guam legislature, and the Guam legislature subsequently created an  appellate division of the district court, providing that the district court had  appellate jurisdiction over certain civil and criminal decisions of the local  court.  Pursuant to the 1984 amendments to the Organic Act, the  appellate division of the District Court of Guam continued to exercise  appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Superior Court, with the U.S.  Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit exercising appellate jurisdiction  over this appellate division.
Once the Supreme Court, authorized by federal law and established by  the Guam legislature, became operational in 1996, it had appellate  jurisdiction over decisions of the Superior Court.  In 2004, the appellate  jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was codified in U.S. Code, to include  jurisdiction to hear appeals over any cause in Guam decided by the  Superior Court of Guam or other courts established under the laws of  Guam.  Thus, current law provides that the Supreme Court has appellate  jurisdiction over decisions of the Superior Court.
section_title: Appeals from the Supreme Court of Guam
paragraphs: From 1996 until 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had  appellate jurisdiction over the Supreme Court of Guam.  Federal law  provided that the relations between the federal and local courts with  respect to appeals, certiorari, removal of causes, and writs of habeas  corpus are governed by the laws respecting the relations between the  federal and state courts, except that for the first 15 years following the  creation of the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit would have jurisdiction  to review by writ of certiorari the decisions of such court.  Thus, once the  Supreme Court became operational in 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for  the Ninth Circuit had appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the  Supreme Court.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated  that its appellate jurisdiction over Supreme Court decisions extended not  only to decisions arising under federal law but also to decisions arising  under local law.
In 2004, 7 years before the expiration of the 15 years after the  establishment of the Supreme Court, Congress repealed the provision  providing the Ninth Circuit with temporary appellate jurisdiction over  decisions of the Supreme Court.  Current law provides that local courts  of Guam have the same relationship to federal courts as do state courts.   Like final decisions of the highest state courts, final decisions of the  Supreme Court of Guam may be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, at  its discretion, by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or federal  law is drawn into question; a territorial statute is drawn into question on  the ground of it being repugnant to the U.S. Constitution, treaties, or  federal law; or any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or  claimed under the U.S. Constitution, treaties, federal, or commission held  or authority exercised under the United States.
section_title: Judges
paragraphs: The length of the terms of appointment for judges sitting on the District  Court of Guam has increased over time.  The Organic Act of 1950 provided  that the judge for the district court was to be appointed by the U.S.  President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a term of 4 years  and paid the same salary as the Governor of Guam.  The 1958  amendments extended the term of the district judge to 8 years and  provided that the district judge of Guam receive the salary of U.S. district  judges.  In 1984, federal law again extended the term of the district judge  of Guam, to 10 years.
In addition to the judge appointed to sit on the District Court of Guam,  other judges may be assigned to sit on the district court, and the  population of judges that may be assigned to sit on the court has increased  over time.  The Organic Act provided that the Chief Justice of the United  States was authorized to assign any consenting U.S. circuit or district  judge to serve as a judge in the District Court of Guam whenever  necessary for the proper dispatch of the business of the court.  In 1958,  federal law expanded the population of judges that were eligible to be  assigned to serve temporarily in the district court by authorizing the Chief  Judge of the Ninth Circuit to assign a judge of the Island Court of Guam, a  judge of the High Court of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or a  circuit or district judge of the Ninth Circuit to serve temporarily as a judge  in the District Court of Guam.  In 1984, federal law again expanded the  population of judges eligible to serve temporarily in the district court by  authorizing the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit to assign a recalled senior  judge of the District Court of Guam or of the District Court for the  Northern Mariana Islands.  As a result, current law provides that the  Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit may assign a judge of any local court of  record, a judge of the High Court of the Trust Territory of the Pacific  Islands, a circuit or district judge of the Ninth Circuit, or a recalled senior  judge of the District Court of Guam or of the District Court for the  Northern Mariana Islands; and the Chief Justice of the United States may  assign any other U.S. circuit or district judge, to serve temporarily as a  judge in the District Court of Guam.
section_title: Appendix VIII: History and Development of the Judicial System in the United States Virgin Islands
subsections: section_title: Overview
paragraphs: The U.S. Virgin Islands consists of three main islands—St. Thomas, St.  John, and St. Croix—as well as about 50 islets and cays.  The islands have  a total land mass of about 135 square miles and are located approximately  1,200 miles southeast of Florida and 40 miles east of Puerto Rico.   According to 2000 U.S. Census Bureau data, the population of the U.S.  Virgin Islands is about 109,000.  Based on the same data, of the U.S. Virgin  Islands population, about 76 percent is black and 13 percent is white, and  though English is spoken at home by the majority of the population, about  17 percent claim Spanish and about 7 percent French or French Creole as  their primary language.
The Virgin Islands are believed to have been first inhabited by the Taino  branch of the Arawak Indian culture group.  The Taino Indians are  believed to have been defeated by the Carib Indians, whom Christopher  Columbus encountered when he first arrived in St. Croix in 1493.   Throughout the seventeenth century, various European powers fought for  control of the islands, but by 1735 Denmark governed the islands.  With  the use of large numbers of slaves, Denmark developed a sugar economy  on St. Croix and a trading economy on St. Thomas.
The United States purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917.   Federal law established a temporary government for the U.S. Virgin  Islands, vesting the Governor, who, from 1917 until 1931 was a naval  officer, with all military, civil, and judicial powers.  The law also provided  that local laws in effect at the time of enactment would remain in force  and be administered by the existing local judicial tribunals.  As such, the  legislative branch consisted of two legislatures, one in St. Croix and one in  St. Thomas, and the judicial branch consisted of the police courts and  district court.
In 1927, federal law provided that all residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands  were U.S. citizens.  In 1931, the President transferred responsibility for  governing the U.S. Virgin Islands from the Secretary of the Navy to the  Secretary of the Interior.
Congress subsequently passed the Organic Act of 1936, which established  local self-government.  The Act provided for two Municipal Councils, one  for St. Croix and one for St. Thomas and St. John, which were to meet  once a year to enact legislation that would apply to the Virgin Islands as a  whole; a Governor, to be appointed by the President with the advice and  consent of the Senate, who was to act under the supervision of the  Secretary of the Interior; and a District Court of the Virgin Islands and  such inferior courts as the local legislature may determine.  The Revised  Organic Act of 1954 largely maintained the governmental structure from  the prior Organic Act, except that it established a unified legislature for  the U.S. Virgin Islands.  In 1968, federal law provided that the Governor  was to be popularly elected, and in 1972, federal law granted the U.S.  Virgin Islands a nonvoting delegate to Congress.  Although Congress  authorized the U.S. Virgin Islands to convene a constitutional convention  to draft a constitution, the proposed constitutions were rejected by  voters.
The court system in the U.S. Virgin Islands has changed over time, with the  local courts gradually gaining increased responsibility and autonomy.  For  example, though the local trial court previously exercised jurisdiction over  certain local issues, in the 1970s and early 1980s the local trial court was  granted concurrent jurisdiction with the district court over additional local  cases, and by 1994 the local trial court had been granted exclusive  jurisdiction over local cases.  Similarly, while the District Court of the  Virgin Islands had appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Superior  Court for a period of time, in 2007 such jurisdiction was transferred from  the District Court of the Virgin Islands to the newly-created Supreme  Court.  The current court system of the U.S. Virgin Islands is composed of  the District Court of the Virgin Islands, which has the jurisdiction of a U.S.  district court and a bankruptcy court; a local Superior Court, which  handles local matters; and a Supreme Court, which has appellate  jurisdiction over decisions of the Superior Court.
section_title: Jurisdiction
paragraphs: From 1917 until 1936, the local judicial system in the U.S. Virgin Islands  operated largely without federal influence.  After the United States  acquired the Virgin Islands in 1917, Congress passed a law providing that  until Congress otherwise provided, local laws were to remain in force and  be administered by the existing local judicial tribunals.  By 1921, the local  judicial tribunals consisted of a district court and three police courts: the  Police Court of Frederiksted, the Police Court of Christiansted, and the  Police Court of Charlotte Amalie.  The district court had jurisdiction over  all civil, criminal, admiralty, equity, insolvency, and probate matters and  causes, unless jurisdiction was conferred on some other court, in which  event the jurisdiction of the district court was concurrent.  The police  courts had jurisdiction, though not exclusive, over the recovery of specific  personal property when the value did not exceed $200, for the recovery of  money or damages when the amount claimed did not exceed $200, and  over cases in which the defendant confessed without action to certain  offenses.  The police courts also had criminal jurisdiction, though not  exclusive, over cases involving larceny when the value of the property did  not exceed $50; assault or assault and battery, except when charged as  committed with intent to commit a felony, in the course of a riot, or with  any weapon or upon a public officer when upon duty; any other  misdemeanor; and any offense over which jurisdiction was specifically  conferred upon the police court.  The police courts did not have  jurisdiction over actions involving the title to real property and actions for  false imprisonment, libel, malicious prosecution, criminal conversation,  seduction upon a promise to marry, actions of an equitable nature, or  admiralty causes.
Beginning in 1936, the District Court of the Virgin Islands had original  jurisdiction in federal cases and some local cases, as well as appellate  jurisdiction over the local courts.  In 1936, the Organic Act established the  District Court of the Virgin Islands, granting it jurisdiction over criminal  cases arising under local or federal law, cases in equity, cases in admiralty,  cases of divorce and annulment of marriage, cases at law involving sums  exceeding $200, cases involving title to real estate, and cases involving  federal offenses committed on the high seas on vessels belonging to U.S.  citizens or corporations when the offenders were found on or brought to  the Virgin Islands.  The District Court of the Virgin Islands also had  concurrent jurisdiction with the police courts over civil cases in which the  sum did not exceed $200 and criminal cases in which the punishment did  not exceed a fine of $100 or imprisonment of 6 months, as well as  appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the police courts.  At the same  time, the Organic Act authorized the local legislature to provide for a local  Superior Court and to transfer from the District Court of the Virgin Islands  to the Superior Court jurisdiction over all cases other than those arising  under federal law.
The Revised Organic Act of 1954 provided that the District Court of the  Virgin Islands had the jurisdiction of a district court of the United States in  all causes arising under federal law, regardless of the sum or value of the  matter in controversy.  The Revised Organic Act also provided that the  district court had general original jurisdiction over all causes in the Virgin  Islands, except that the local courts had exclusive jurisdiction over civil  actions in which the matter in controversy did not exceed $500, criminal  cases in which the maximum punishment did not exceed $100 or  imprisonment for 6 months, or both, and all violations of police and  executive regulations.  The Act further authorized the local legislature to  grant the local courts additional jurisdiction, to be exercised concurrently  with the district court.
Over time, the Virgin Islands government granted the local courts  additional jurisdiction, which was exercised concurrently with the district  court.  In 1976, Virgin Islands law provided that the newly-named  Territorial Court had concurrent jurisdiction over civil cases in which the  amount in controversy exceeded $500 but did not exceed $50,000 and over  criminal cases in which the punishment exceeded a fine of $100 or  imprisonment for 6 months but did not exceed imprisonment for 1 year or  a fine as prescribed by law.  The same law provided that 2 years after the  effective date of the law, the Territorial Court would assume jurisdiction,  concurrent with the district court, over criminal cases in which the  maximum sentence did not exceed imprisonment for 5 years or a fine as  prescribed by law.  In 1981, local law expanded the civil jurisdiction of  the Territorial Court by increasing the maximum amount in controversy  from $50,000 to $200,000.
In 1984, Congress further defined the jurisdiction of the District Court of  the Virgin Islands and authorized the local legislature to divest the district  court of jurisdiction over local matters.  Congress amended the Organic  Act, conferring upon the District Court of the Virgin Islands the  jurisdiction of a federal court, including diversity jurisdiction; the  jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court; exclusive jurisdiction over cases  involving income tax laws applicable to the Virgin Islands; and  concurrent jurisdiction with the local courts over offenses against local  law that are based on the same underlying facts as offenses against federal  law.  The amendments also granted the District Court of the Virgin  Islands jurisdiction over all causes in the Virgin Islands not vested by local  law in the local courts of the U.S. Virgin Islands, except that the  jurisdiction of the district court was not to extend to civil cases in which  the matter in controversy did not exceed the sum of $500 or to criminal  cases in which the maximum punishment did not exceed a fine of $100 or  imprisonment for 6 months, or both, and to violations of local police and  executive regulations.  In conjunction with this provision, the  amendments authorized the legislature of the Virgin Islands to vest in the  local courts jurisdiction over all causes in the Virgin Islands over which  any federal court did not have exclusive jurisdiction.
The U.S. Virgin Islands government subsequently took action to expand  the jurisdiction of the local courts and divest the district court of  jurisdiction over local matters.  The local legislature provided that,  effective in 1991, the Territorial Court had jurisdiction over all civil cases  regardless of the amount in controversy, subject to the original jurisdiction  of the District Court of the Virgin Islands.  Effective in 1992, Virgin  Islands law provided that the Territorial Court had jurisdiction, subject to  the concurrent jurisdiction of the district court, over criminal cases in  which the punishment did not exceed imprisonment for 15 years or a fine  prescribed by law.  Effective in 1994, the criminal jurisdiction of the  Territorial Court was further expanded, as Virgin Islands law provided that  the Territorial Court had jurisdiction over all criminal cases, subject to the  concurrent jurisdiction of the district court over local offenses with the  same underlying facts as federal offenses.  Thus, current law provides  that the District Court of the Virgin Islands has the jurisdiction of a district  court of the United States, including diversity jurisdiction; the jurisdiction  of a bankruptcy court; jurisdiction over all matters relating to income tax  laws applicable to the Virgin Islands; and concurrent jurisdiction with the  Superior Court over criminal cases arising under local law in which the  underlying facts are the same as federal offenses.
section_title: Appeals
subsections: section_title: Appeals from the District Court of the Virgin Islands to the U.S. Court of Appeals
paragraphs: Since 1917, decisions of the District Court of the Virgin Islands could be  appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  In 1917, after  the United States acquired the Virgin Islands, Congress passed a law  providing that appeals were to be made to the U.S. Court of Appeals for  the Third Circuit.  The Organic Act of 1936 provided that appeals from  the District Court were to be as provided by the law in force on the date of  enactment.  In 1948, federal law provided that the U.S. Court of Appeals  for the Third Circuit had appellate jurisdiction over final and interlocutory  decisions of the District Court of the Virgin Islands.  The 1984  amendments to the Organic Act confirmed that such appellate jurisdiction  extended to decisions of the appellate division of the district court, which  had appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Superior Court.  Once the  Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands became operational in 2007, this  provision became moot.  Thus, current law provides that the U.S. Court of  Appeals for the Third Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over final and  interlocutory decisions of the District Court of the Virgin Islands.
section_title: Appeals from the District Court of the Virgin Islands to the U.S. Supreme Court
paragraphs: From 1948 until 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction  over certain decisions of the District Court of the Virgin Islands.  In 1948,  federal law provided that the U.S. Supreme Court had appellate  jurisdiction over any decision of the District Court of the Virgin Islands  that held a federal law unconstitutional in a case in which the United  States was a party.  In 1988, however, Congress repealed this provision.   As a result, current law provides that the decisions of the District Court of  the Virgin Islands may not be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
section_title: Appeals from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
paragraphs: From 1936 until 2007, decisions of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands  could be appealed to the District Court of the Virgin Islands; since 2007,  the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has had appellate jurisdiction over  decisions of the Superior Court.  The Organic Act of 1936 provided that the  District Court of the Virgin Islands had appellate jurisdiction over  decisions of the local courts.  The Revised Organic Act of 1954 again  provided that the District Court of the Virgin Islands had appellate  jurisdiction over decisions of the local courts to the extent prescribed by  local law.  By 1965, the Virgin Islands legislature had defined the  appellate jurisdiction of the district court over the decisions of the  Superior Court, providing that the district court had appellate jurisdiction  over Superior Court decisions in all civil cases, all juvenile and domestic  relations cases, and all criminal cases in which the defendant was  convicted, other than by guilty plea.  In 1984, federal law provided for an  appellate division of the District Court of the Virgin Islands, which was to  consist of the chief judge of the district court and two designated judges,  provided that not more than one of them was a judge of a court  established by local law.  The federal law also authorized the Virgin  Islands legislature to establish an appellate court, and in 2004, the Virgin  Islands legislature did so, establishing the Supreme Court of the Virgin  Islands.  Once the Supreme Court became operational in 2007, it assumed  appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Superior Court.
section_title: Appeals from the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
paragraphs: Since 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has had  appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the Supreme Court of the  Virgin Islands.  Federal law provides that the relations between the federal  and local courts with respect to appeals, certiorari, removal of causes, and  writs of habeas corpus are governed by the laws respecting the relations  between the federal and state courts; however, the law provides that for  the first 15 years following the creation of the Supreme Court, the Third  Circuit is to have jurisdiction to review by writ of certiorari the decisions  of such court.  As such, since 2007, when the Supreme Court became  operational, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has exercised  this jurisdiction.  In 2022, upon the expiration of the 15 years, local courts  of the Virgin Islands will have the same relationship to the federal judicial  system as do state courts.  Of significance, final decisions of the Supreme  Court of the Virgin Islands will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, at  its discretion, by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or federal  law is drawn into question; a territorial statute is drawn into question on  the ground of it being repugnant to the U.S. Constitution, treaties, or  federal law; or any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or  claimed under the U.S. Constitution, treaties, federal, or commission held  or authority exercised under the United States.
section_title: Judges
paragraphs: Both the number of judges of the District Court of the Virgin Islands and  the terms of appointment of those judges have increased over time.  The  Organic Act of 1936 provided that the judge of the District Court of the  Virgin Islands was to be appointed by the President with the advice and  consent of the Senate and hold a term of 4 years unless sooner removed by  the President for cause.  The Revised Organic Act of 1954 increased the  term of the judge to 8 years and provided that the judge should receive the  salary equal to that of judges of U.S. district courts.  In 1970, the District  Court of the Virgin Islands was allocated an additional district judge, and  in 1984, federal law increased the term of the two judges of the district  court to 10 years.
In addition to the judges appointed to sit on the District Court of the Virgin  Islands, other judges may be assigned to sit temporarily on the court, and  the population of judges eligible to be assigned to the District Court of the  Virgin Islands has increased over time.  The Revised Organic Act of 1954  provided that, whenever such an assignment is necessary for the proper  dispatch of the business of the district court, the Chief Judge of the Third  Circuit may assign a circuit or district judge of the Third Circuit, or the  Chief Justice of the United States may assign any other U.S. circuit or  district judge with the consent of the judge and of the chief judge of that  circuit, to serve temporarily as a judge of the District Court of the Virgin  Islands.  In 1970, federal law expanded the pool of judges that the Chief  Judge of the Third Circuit may assign to serve temporarily as a judge of the  District Court of the Virgin Islands to include judges of the Municipal  Court of the Virgin Islands.  The 1984 federal law further expanded the  pool of judges eligible to be assigned by the Chief Judge of the Third  Circuit to the district court to include any judge of a court of record of the  Virgin Islands established by local law and a recalled senior judge of the  District Court of the Virgin Islands.  Thus, current law provides that,  when such an assignment is necessary for the proper dispatch of the  business of the court, the chief judge of the Third Circuit may assign a  judge of a court of record of the Virgin Islands established by local law, a  circuit or district judge of the Third Circuit, or a recalled senior judge of  the District Court of the Virgin Islands; and the Chief Justice of the United  States may assign any other United States circuit or district judge with the  consent of the assigned judge and the chief judge of that circuit, to serve  temporarily as a judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands.
section_title: Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Christopher Conrad, Assistant  Director, Chuck Bausell, Jenny Chanley, George Depaoli, Emil Friberg,  Jared Hermalin, Nancy Kawahara, Tracey King, Jeff Malcolm, Jan  Montgomery, Amy Sheller, and Adam Vogt made key contributions to this  report.