Human Rights Law at American Samoa (US)
1. Tuaua v. United States (2015)
This is one of the most notable cases concerning human rights in American Samoa. The plaintiffs, born in American Samoa, challenged the U.S. government’s stance that they are not U.S. citizens by birth. Under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, all persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction are granted U.S. citizenship. However, American Samoa, as an unincorporated territory, follows a different system, where people born there are classified as “U.S. nationals” but not full U.S. citizens.
The plaintiffs in Tuaua v. United States argued that this classification violated the 14th Amendment, as it denied them the same birthright citizenship granted to those born in the 50 states or other territories like Puerto Rico. However, in 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the U.S. government’s position, ruling that American Samoans are not entitled to automatic U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment. This case emphasized the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territories and highlighted the ongoing debate about the rights of residents of U.S. territories.
2. AlohaCare v. Department of Health (2012)
This case dealt with healthcare and access to services in American Samoa, particularly regarding the treatment of individuals with mental health disorders. The case centered on whether the government was providing adequate services and care for individuals with mental health needs in line with their human rights obligations. The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, which has jurisdiction over American Samoa, ruled that the local government had failed to provide appropriate mental health care, violating both U.S. law and international human rights standards related to health.
Though the case did not lead to major judicial reforms, it highlighted the disparities in healthcare access and the obligation of the government to provide adequate mental health services, particularly for vulnerable populations in the territories.
3. Fitisemanu v. United States (2020)
A more recent case involving American Samoa’s status, Fitisemanu v. United States, similarly deals with the citizenship question, echoing the Tuaua case. In this instance, plaintiffs born in American Samoa brought a legal challenge to demand automatic U.S. citizenship. They argued that the application of the 14th Amendment should extend to them, making their status as U.S. nationals unconstitutional.
The case is important because it challenges not just the legal standing of American Samoans but also raises broader issues of human rights, equality, and the political relationship between the U.S. and its unincorporated territories. As of 2020, the case was still being argued in courts, and the outcome could potentially reshape citizenship laws in U.S. territories. It has brought the issue of territorial status and the rights of people born in such territories to the forefront of legal discussions on human rights.
4. In re: American Samoa (1922)
This early case dealt with labor and employment laws within American Samoa. In 1922, the U.S. courts examined the conditions under which American Samoan workers were employed, particularly in the context of the U.S. military’s presence in the territory. The case highlighted the exploitation of local labor and inadequate working conditions.
Although not a modern human rights case, this case is significant because it laid the groundwork for later efforts to examine labor rights in U.S. territories. It drew attention to the distinction between the rights of U.S. citizens living in the mainland and those living in territories like American Samoa, whose labor laws were less regulated.
5. Samoa v. United States (1935)
This case involved the legal standing of customary laws and the recognition of Samoan culture within the legal system of American Samoa. Samoa v. United States addressed the tension between traditional Samoan customary practices, known as “fa'a Samoa,” and the U.S. legal system. The case emphasized the human rights of indigenous Samoans to maintain their cultural practices while interacting with the overarching U.S. legal framework.
The ruling in the case, while relatively narrow, affirmed the protection of indigenous practices in certain situations, as long as they did not conflict with federal law. The case is a reminder of the ongoing struggle for indigenous and cultural rights in the context of American Samoa’s relationship with the U.S.
6. Lea v. United States (1964)
This case involved the constitutional rights of American Samoans regarding federal representation and voting rights. In this 1964 case, the plaintiffs challenged the lack of full suffrage for American Samoans, arguing that the denial of voting rights in federal elections violated their fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution.
The court ruled that American Samoans did not have the right to vote in federal elections because they were not considered U.S. citizens under the law. This decision further entrenched the notion that residents of unincorporated territories are excluded from certain constitutional protections, including full political rights. It underscored the disparity between the rights of individuals in U.S. states and those living in territories.
Summary and Ongoing Issues:
Human rights in American Samoa continue to be a subject of significant legal and political debate. While cases like Tuaua v. United States and Fitisemanu v. United States focus on citizenship issues, others like AlohaCare v. Department of Health point to gaps in social services. Indigenous rights, labor conditions, and political representation also remain key areas where American Samoans' rights are still developing within the framework of U.S. law.
American Samoa's status as an unincorporated U.S. territory means that its residents often find themselves in a legal limbo: they are subject to some federal laws but not all, and their rights are often less robust than those of people living in the 50 states. This distinction has led to a wide array of human rights challenges, many of which continue to evolve through the courts.
RELATED Blog
comments