Tuaua v. United States

Decision Date26 June 2013
Docket NumberCivil Case No. 12–01143(RJL).
PartiesLeneuoti Fiafia TUAUA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Murad Hussain, Robert J. Katerberg, Arnold & Porter LLP, Elizabeth Bonnie Wydra, Judith Ellen Schaeffer, Neil C. Weare, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Wynne Patrick Kelly, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD J. LEON, District Judge.

Plaintiffs are five non-citizen U.S. nationals born in American Samoa and the Samoan Federation of America, a nonprofit organization serving the Samoan communityin Los Angeles. Compl. ¶¶ 10–15.1 They seek declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants, the United States and the related parties that execute its citizenship laws. Id. ¶¶ 16–19.2 They assert that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause extends to American Samoa and that people born in American Samoa are therefore U.S. citizens at birth. Id. at 25–26. Plaintiffs also argue that Immigration and Naturalization Act § 308(1) is unconstitutional because it provides that American Samoans are noncitizen U.S. nationals. See id. at 26. Further, they ask the Court to hold that a State Department policy and practice are unconstitutional and invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See Compl. at 26. Underlying all of these claims is the same legal argument: the Citizenship Clause applies to American Samoa, so contrary law and policy must be invalidated. The United States and related parties move to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. See Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss (“Defs.' Mem.”) [Dkt. # 9] at 1. Because plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court GRANTS defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

BACKGROUND

American Samoa is located on the eastern islands of an archipelago in the South Pacific. Compl. ¶ 3. The United States claimed this territory in a 1900 treaty with Great Britain and Germany, 31 Stat. 1878, and Samoan leaders formally ceded sovereignty to the United States in 1900 and 1904, 45 Stat. 1253. American Samoa was administered by the Secretary of the Navy until 1951, when President Truman transferred administrative responsibility to American Samoa's current supervisor, the Secretary of the Interior. Exec. Order No. 10,264, 16 Fed.Reg. 6,417 (July 3, 1951).

Over the past half-century, American Samoa has strengthened its ties to the United States. The Constitution of American Samoa was approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1967 and provides for an elected bicameral legislature, an appointed governor, and an independent judiciary. Compl. ¶ 27. In 1977, the Secretary permitted the governor to be selected by popular vote. Id. One year later, Congress voted to give American Samoa a nonvoting delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives. Id.3 American Samoans have served in the U.S. military since 1900 and, most recently, in the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Id. ¶ 31. In signing the 1978 legislation granting American Samoa a delegate in Congress, President Carter acknowledged the islands' contributions to American sports and culture and their role as “a permanent part of American political life.” Jimmy Carter, Presidential Statement on Signing H.R. 13702 into Law (Oct. 31, 1978), cited in Pls.' Mem. of P. & A. in Opp'n to Gov't's Mot. Dismiss (“Pls.' Opp'n”) [Dkt. # 18] at 5 n. 7.

At the same time, however, American Samoa has endeavored to preserve its traditional way of life known as fa'a Samoa. Indeed, its constitution protects the Samoan tradition of communal ownership of ancestral lands by large, extended families:

It shall be the policy of the Government of American Samoa to protect persons of Samoan ancestry against alienation of their lands and the destruction of the Samoan way of life and language, contrary to their best interests. Such legislation as may be necessary may be enacted to protect the lands, customs, culture, and traditional Samoan family organization of persons of Samoan ancestry, and to encourage business enterprises by such persons. No change in the law respecting the alienation or transfer of land or any interest therein, shall be effective unless the same be approved by two successive legislatures by a two-thirds vote of the entire membership of each house and by the Governor.

Rev. Const. of Am. Samoa art. I, § 3; see also Craddick v. Territorial Registrar, 1 Am. Samoa 2d 11, 12 (1980); Amicus Br. at 4–5. American Samoans take pride in their unique political and cultural practices, and they celebrate its history free from conquest or involuntary annexation by foreign powers. Amicus Br. at 3.

Federal law classifies American Samoa as an “outlying possession” of the United States. Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) § 101(a)(29), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(29). As such, people born in American Samoa are U.S. nationals but not U.S. citizens at birth. INA § 308(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1408(1). The State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (“FAM”) accordingly categorizes American Samoa as an unincorporated territory and states that “the citizenship provisions of the Constitution do not apply to persons born there.” 7 FAM § 1125.1(b). In accordance with INA and FAM, the State Department stamps the passports of people born in American Samoa with “Endorsement Code 09,” which declares that the holder of the passport is a U.S. national but not a U.S. citizen. See Compl. ¶ 7; Defs.' Mem. at 6–7. American Samoans have been permitted to become naturalized U.S. citizens since 1952, but plaintiffs describe that process as “lengthy, costly, and burdensome.” Compl. ¶¶ 47–48. American Samoans must relocate to another part of the United States to begin the naturalization process, and the citizenship application requires a $680 fee, a moral character assessment, fingerprinting, and an English and civics examination. Pls.' Opp'n at 11.

All of the individual plaintiffs were issued passports by the State Department bearing Endorsement Code 09. See id. ¶¶ 10–14. Plaintiffs allege a variety of harms that have befallen them due to their non-citizen national status. Several plaintiffs, despite long careers in the military or law enforcement, remain unable to vote or to work in jobs that require citizenship status. Id. ¶ 10(c), 11(c)-(e), 14(c)-(d). Other harms include: ineligibility for federal work-study programs in college, id. ¶ 11(c); ineligibility for firearm permits, id. ¶ 11(e); and inability to obtain travel and immigration visas, id. ¶ 12(e), 13(d-e).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). See Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss Pls.' Compl. (“Defs.' Mot.”) [Dkt. # 9] at 1. For a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), “the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the factual predicates of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Erby v. United States, 424 F.Supp.2d 180, 182 (D.D.C.2006) (citing, inter alia, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)). [P]laintiff's factual allegations in the complaint ... will bear closer scrutiny in resolving a 12(b)(1) motion than in resolving a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.” U.S. ex rel. Digital Healthcare, Inc. v. Affiliated Computer, 778 F.Supp.2d 37, 43 (D.D.C.2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether the plaintiff has pleaded facts sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” assuming that the facts alleged are true. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). “While a complaint should not be dismissed unless the court determines that the allegations do not support relief on any legal theory, the complaint nonetheless must set forth sufficient information to suggest that there is some recognized legal theory upon which relief may be granted.” District of Columbia v. Air Fla., Inc., 750 F.2d 1077, 1078 (D.C.Cir.1984).

In considering motions under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6), a court must construe the complaint in a light favorable to the plaintiff and must accept as true plaintiff's reasonable factual inferences. See Howard v. Fenty, 580 F.Supp.2d 86, 89–90 (D.D.C.2008); Smith v. United States, 475 F.Supp.2d 1, 7 (D.D.C.2006) (citing EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621, 624 (D.C.Cir.1997)).

ANALYSIS
I. Jurisdiction

Before the Court can reach the merits of this case, it must, of course, ensure that the dispute falls within its jurisdiction. Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 320 F.3d 272, 277 (D.C.Cir.2003). Defendants put forth three arguments contesting this Court's jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims: 1) two of plaintiffs' APA claims are jurisdictionally time-barred, 2) the Samoan Federation of America lacks standing, and 3) plaintiffs' complaint is barred by the political question doctrine. See Defs.' Mem. at 17–18, 19–23. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction.

First, defendants allege that two of the five individual plaintiffs' APA claims are time-barred because their passports, bearing Endorsement Code 09, were issued outside the six year limitations period. See Defs.' Mem. at 20–21.4 Putting aside the merits of defendants' argument, however, the fact remains that the three other plaintiffs have, in essence, raised the identical APA claim. Thus, having jurisdiction to hear those claims effectively provides this Court with the very jurisdiction necessary to evaluate the merits of these claims.

Similarly, defendants' assertion that the Samoan Federation of America...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Segovia v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs for Chi.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • August 23, 2016
    ...plaintiffs have standing or not." Ezell v. City of Chicago , 651 F.3d 684, 696 n. 7 (7th Cir.2011) ; see alsoTuaua v. United States , 951 F.Supp.2d 88, 92–93 (D.D.C.2013), aff'd , 788 F.3d 300 (D.C.Cir.2015) (holding that it was unnecessary to address whether the Samoan Federation of Americ......
  • Hueter v. Kruse
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • December 17, 2021
    ...adopted their own Constitution by referendum, which was approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1967. See Tuaua v. United States , 951 F. Supp. 2d 88, 90 (D.D.C. 2013). In 1977, the Secretary permitted the governor to be selected by popular vote. Id. And in 1983, Congress passed legisl......
  • Swanson Grp. Mfg. LLC v. Salazar
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • June 26, 2013
    ... ... Ken SALAZAR, et al., Defendants. Civil Case No. 10–1843 (RJL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. June 26, 2013 ...         [951 ... ...
  • Tuaua v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 5, 2015
    ...possessing a popularly elected bicameral legislature and similarly elected governor.1 Complaint at 13 ¶ 27, Tuaua v. United States, 951 F.Supp.2d 88 (D.D.C.2013) (No. 12–cv–01143). The territory, however, remains under the ultimate supervision of the Secretary of the Interior. See Exec. Ord......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The Insular Cases Run Amok: Against Constitutional Exceptionalism in the Territories.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 No. 8, June 2022
    • June 1, 2022
    ...15-981); Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of Constitutional Law and Legal History in Support of Neither Party, Tuaua v. United States, 951 F. Supp. 2d 88, 91 (D.D.C. 2013) (No. (398.) See supra Part I. (399.) See supra Part IV. (400.) See supra Part III. (401.) See supra Part II. (402.) I too......
  • Truer U.S. History: Race, Borders, and Status Manipulation.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 130 No. 5, March 2021
    • March 1, 2021
    ...for Goose and Gander, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 5,1905, at 6. (195.) See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. [section] 1101 (a)(29) (2018); Tuaua v. United States, 951 F. Supp. 2d 88, 90 (D.D.C. 2013). Immerwahr is incorrect when he writes, "The Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to 'all persons born or naturalize......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT