After a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in June that there is no right to citizenship for people born in U.S. territories, current and former elected officials from Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, along with a diverse array of scholars, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Virgin Islands Bar Association are calling for the full 10th Circuit to rehear the case.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt says a lot about the importance of this case to have such broad support for rehearing by the full Tenth Circuit,\u201d said Neil Weare, president and founder of Equally American, which advocates for equality and civil rights for the 3.5 million residents of U.S. territories. \u201cTheir arguments really show what is at stake if the divided panel\u2019s decision is allowed to stand.\u201d<\/p>\n
The following amicus briefs were filed in support of rehearing en banc:<\/p>\n
\u25a0 Members of Congress, former members of Congress, and former governors of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands:<\/p>\n
\u2751 U.S. Virgin Islands: Delegate Stacey Plaskett, former governors Kenneth E. Map and John de Jongh, and former delegate Donna M. Christian-Christensen<\/p>\n
\u2751 Guam: Delegate Michael F.Q. San Nicolas, former governor Carl Gutierrez<\/p>\n
\u2751 Puerto Rico: Former governors Luis Fortu\u00f1o, An\u00edbal Acevedo Vil\u00e1, and Dr. Pedro Rossell\u00f3<\/p>\n
\u2751 Northern Mariana Islands: Former governor Juan Babauta<\/p>\n
\u25a0 Argues for rehearing because the divided 10th Circuit panel\u2019s decision creates \u201ca divisive two-tiered citizenship structure whereby individuals born in the 50 states are constitutionally entitled to birthright citizenship, while those born in the territories may receive citizenship only as a favor dispensed by Congress, capable of being withdrawn at will.\u201d<\/p>\n
Demonstrates how \u201ccitizenship is fully consistent with the preservation of the territories\u2019 cultural heritage and political self-determination.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u25a0 Citizenship scholars: Argues for rehearing because \u201cthe panel majority\u2019s decision rests on premises sharply at odds with the historical record.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u25a0 Scholars of constitutional law and legal history: Argues for rehearing because \u201c[i]n holding that the Citizenship Clause does not confer birthright citizenship on individuals born in American Samoa, the panel majority relied extensively on the Insular Cases, which the majority itself acknowledged are \u2018disreputable to modern eyes\u2019 because of their racist and imperialist underpinnings, and which the Supreme Court has long said should not be \u2018given any further expansion.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
\u25a0 American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Utah: Argues for rehearing because \u201cthe Insular Cases cannot be repurposed to serve the aims of self-determination when they only reinforce congressional dominion over the territories.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u25a0 Virgin Islands Bar Association: Argues for rehearing because \u201cAlthough this case seeks to vindicate the citizenship of American Samoans, allowing the panel decision to stand would call into question the foundation and durability of the citizenship of Americans born in the Virgin Islands, and of every American born in any U.S. territory. It sanctions a second class, statutory citizenship that exists only at the whim of Congress, sending the unequivocal message to Virgin Islanders, Puerto Ricans, Guamanians, and Northern Mariana Islanders alike that their citizenship\u2014a foundational principle of every American\u2019s identity\u2014can be destroyed at any moment by a governmental unit in which they have no voting representation.\u201d<\/p>\n
The United States has also requested an extension of time to respond to plaintiffs\u2019 petition for rehearing, with the 10th Circuit ordering a response by the United States and Intervenors due by Sept. 15, 2021. (PR)<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" After a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":349078,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[320],"class_list":["post-349564","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-local-news","tag-us"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/349564","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/28"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=349564"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/349564\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/349078"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=349564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=349564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=349564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}