IgartÚa v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 24 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-2186,09-2186 |
| Citation | 626 F.3d 592 |
| Parties | Gregorio IGARTÚA, et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Gregorio Igartúa for the appellants.
Claudio Aliff-Ortiz with whom Guillermo Somoza-Colombani, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Irene Soroeta Kodesh, Solicitor General of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Eliezer Aldarondo-Ortiz, and Eliezer A. Aldarondo-López were on brief for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, amicus curiae.
Mark R. Freeman, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, with whom Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, and Michael Jay Singer, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, were on brief for appellees.
Before LYNCH, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Gregorio Igartúa and others have brought suit claiming they and other U.S. citizen-residents of Puerto Rico have a right to vote for a Representative to the U.S. House of Representatives from Puerto Rico and a right to have Representatives from Puerto Rico in that body. Long ago, residents of Puerto Rico were granted U.S. citizenship by statute. See Pub.L. No. 368, ch. 145, § 5, 39 Stat. 951 (1917).
Igartúa's putative class action claim is supported in part by the government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which has filed a brief amicus curiae and presented oral argument. The defendants are the United States, as well as the President of the United States, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, all in their official capacities. Among the remedies Igartúa seeks is an order directing these officials to "take all the necessary steps ... to implement[ ] the apportionment of Representatives [in the] electoral process to Puerto Rico."
The district court dismissed the complaint. See Igartua v. United States, No. 08-1174 (D.P.R. June 3, 2009). On de novo review, we affirm the dismissal. The text of the U.S. Constitution grants the ability to choose, and so to vote for, members of the House of Representatives to "the People of the several States." U.S. Const. art. I, § 2. Since Puerto Rico is not a state, and cannot be treated as a state under the Constitution for these purposes, its citizens do not have a constitutional right to vote for members of the House of Representatives. Igartúa's claim that international law requires a contrary result is foreclosed by our decision in the last case Igartúa brought before us. See Igartúa-De La Rosa v. United States ( Igartúa III ), 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir.2005) (en banc). The case was properly dismissed.
The panel is unanimous in agreeing that the U.S. Constitution does not give Puerto Rico residents the right to vote for members of the House of Representatives because Puerto Rico is not a state.
Chief Judge Lynch and Judge Lipez conclude that this panel is bound by Igartúa III claims based on treaties and international law. Judge Lipez joins the holding that dismissal of the case is affirmed. He joins this introduction, the introduction to Section II, Sections II.A, II.B, and II.C.1, and Section III of Chief Judge Lynch's opinion. He expresses additional views in his concurring opinion.
Judge Torruella dissents and is of the view that the constitutional text neither denies citizens of Puerto Rico the right to vote for members of the House of Representatives nor imposes a limitation on the federal government's authority to extend the franchise to territorial residents under other constitutional powers.
This is plaintiff Igartúa's fourth case before this court raising questions about the ability of the U.S. citizen-residents of Puerto Rico to vote for those high federal officials described in the Constitution. In three earlier decisions, including an en banc decision, this court rejected Igartúa'sanalogous claims that Puerto Rican U.S. citizen-residents have a right to vote in elections for President and Vice President of the United States. See Igartúa III, 417 F.3d 145; Igartúa De La Rosa v. United States ( Igartúa II ), 229 F.3d 80 (1st Cir.2000); Igartúa De La Rosa v. United States, 32 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.1994). These cases inform our analysis of this admittedly different, but related question.
Igartúa's arguments are unavailing. First, the text of the Constitution, in several provisions, plainly limits the right to choose members of the House of Representatives to citizens of a state. Second, the constitutional text is entirely unambiguous as to what constitutes statehood; the Constitution explicitly recites the thirteen original states as being the states and articulates a clear mechanism for the admission of other states, as distinct from territories. Puerto Rico does not meet these criteria. Third, these provisions of the constitutional text are deliberate and go to the heart of the Constitution. This deliberate constitutional framework may not be upset.
This Section addresses these points, which require the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint. The subsequent Sections turn to the additional arguments raised by Igartúa and the government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The analysis of Igartúa's constitutional claims begins with the pertinent text of the U.S. Constitution as to the U.S. House of Representatives. This language is different from that governing the ability to vote for President, which was at issue in Igartúa III.
The text of the Constitution refers directly to the election of members of the House of Representatives in Article I, Article II, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Article I reads, in relevant part:
U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 1-4 (emphasis added); id. § 4, cl. 1 (emphasis added). Article I itself uses the term "State" or "States" eight times when defining and outlining the House of Representatives.
In addition to Article I, Article II, when referring to the election of the President, reads:
Each State shall appoint ... a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives towhich the State may be entitled in the Congress.
Id. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 (emphasis added). This reinforces the link between statehood and the House of Representatives.
Further, the Fourteenth Amendment, when describing the apportionment of Representatives, states:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State....
Id. amend. XIV, § 2 (emphasis added). The amendment process has been used to reinforce, not to alter, the original text that Representatives come from the states.
The text of Article I is clear that only the people of a state may choose the members of the House of Representatives from that state. Id. art. I, § 2, cl. 1 (). We reject Igartúa's argument that this text refers only to "People" and that we may ignore the express limitation on representation to "People of the several States." Id. (emphasis added).1 Our conclusion is reinforced by Article I, Section 2, Clauses 2 through 4, as well as by Article I, Section 4, Article II, Clause 2, and Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which again refer to states in describing the number of Representatives, their apportionment, and the setting of elections.
The text of the Constitution defines the term "State" and affords no flexibility as to its meaning. The term is unambiguous and refers to the thirteen original states, which are specifically named in Article I, Section 2, id. art. I, § 2, cl. 3, and those which have since joined the Union through the process set by the Constitution, id. art. IV, § 3, cl. 1; see also Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 216, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845) (). Puerto Rico fits in none of these categories.
Because Puerto Rico is not a state, it may not have a member of the House of Representatives. Id. art. I, § 2, cl. 1. And because Puerto Rico is not a state, the legislature of Puerto Rico may not set any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castañon v. United States, Civil Action No. 18-2545 Three-Judge Court (RDM, RLW, TNM)
...considered in 2010 whether U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico had a right to elect a Representative to the House. Igartúa v. United States , 626 F.3d 592 (1st Cir. 2010). In holding that the Constitution foreclosed such a right, the First Circuit surveyed the constitutional text, and not......
-
Segovia v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs for Chi.
...conclusion does not reflect the court's view that the current scheme is desirable or proper. See generally Igartua v. United States , 626 F.3d 592, 594 (1st Cir.2010) (holding that "the U.S. Constitution does not give Puerto Rico residents the right to vote for members of the House of Repre......
-
Morales v. Puerto Rico, Crim. No. 15-1096 (GAG)
...recognized that 'Puerto Rico enjoys the same immunity from suit that a State has under the Eleventh Amendment.'"); Igartúa v. United States, 626 F.3d 592, 598 (1st Cir. 2010) (noting that the "Eleventh Amendment restrictions on the jurisdiction of the federal courts have been extended to Pu......
-
Morales v. Puerto Rico
...recognized that 'Puerto Rico enjoys the same immunity from suit that a State has under the Eleventh Amendment.'"); Igartúa v. United States, 626 F.3d 592, 598 (1st Cir. 2010) (noting that the "Eleventh Amendment restrictions on the jurisdiction of the federal courts have been extended to Pu......
-
Jurisdictional Avoidance: Rectifying the Lower Courts' Misapplication of Steel Co.
...though not binding [on lower courts], 'must be accorded great weight and should be treated as authoritative.'" Igartua v. United States, 626 F.3d 592, 605 n.15 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Crowe v. Bolduc, 365 F.3d 86, 92 (1st Cir. (125.) See Norton v. Mathews, 427 U.S. 524, 530 (1976). Note th......
-
Aurelius' Article III Revisionism: Reimagining Judicial Engagement with the Insular Cases and "The Law of the Territories".
...("The right preexists the potential amendment by virtue that the Constitution itself provides that right."); Igartua v. United States, 626 F.3d 592, 639 (1st Cir. 2010) (Torruella, J., dissenting) ("I would issue a declaratory judgement to the effect that Appellants' rights under domestic l......
-
Delaying Puerto Rican Self-Determination: How the Contradictory Mandates of Public Law 600 and PROMESA Undermine America's Founding Principle.
...[https://perma.cc/EGS8-VV5Z] (discussing inherent inequity of Puerto Rico's political status); see also Igartua v. United States, 626 F.3d 592, 594 (1st Cir. 2010) (holding Puerto Rico's citizens have no constitutional right to vote in House of Representatives elections); Igartua de la Rosa......