United States v. Gov't of Guam

• Decision Date: 21 December 2018
• Docket Number: CIVIL CASE NO. 17-00113
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT OF GUAM; CHAMORRO LAND TRUST COMMISSION; and ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CHAMORRO LAND TRUST COMMISSION, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Guam

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT OF GUAM; CHAMORRO LAND TRUST COMMISSION;

and ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE

CHAMORRO LAND TRUST COMMISSION, Defendants.

CIVIL CASE NO. 17-00113

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE TERRITORY OF GUAM

December 21, 2018

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND JOINDER THEREIN

I. INTRODUCTION.

Whether the Chamorro Land Trust Act violates the Fair Housing Act is not an issue that this court can decide on the thin record before it. This court therefore denies the United States' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, ruling that the United States has failed to meet its burden of showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the allegations in its Complaint and on matters of which the court may take judicial notice.

There is a second motion for judgment on the pleadings before this court. Guam moves for an order limiting the relief that may be ordered against it even assuming Guam's liability in this case is established. This court, agreeing with Guam that money damages may not be recovered against it in this case, limits any relief to declaratory and injunctive relief, while leaving the question of whether civil penalties may be assessed for further discussion.

II. SUMMARY OF RULING.

In its Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, the United States seeks to stop Guam from continuing what the United States describes as racial discrimination through the implementation of the Chamorro Land Trust Act. Specifically, the United States asserts that the provision of benefits exclusively to "native Chamorro" individuals by the Chamorro Land Trust Commission violates the Fair Housing Act.

Many of the factual allegations are undisputed. During and after World War II, the United States seized land on Guam, mostly from Guam's native inhabitants, the Chamorro people. The United States provided little or no compensation, and the documentation underlying these seizures was sparse or nonexistent. Land was returned to the territory of Guam in 1952; the language returning that land expressly recognized that Guam's inhabitants had had land taken from them and were entitled to consideration of their needs. It was not until decades later that Guam passed the Chamorro Land Trust Act, designed to provide leases of land to people who became United States citizens whenGuam became a United States territory in 1950 via the Organic Act of Guam. These people were mostly Chamorro people.

Guam argues that the factual allegations do not establish that the Chamorro Land Trust is based on a racial classification, as opposed to a political classification. This court agrees with Guam that, at this pleading stage, the court cannot conclude that the Chamorro Land Trust operates as a race-based entity. The record must be further developed to address the question of whether the Chamorro Land Trust operates instead as a compensatory entity that seeks to implement the return to the people of Guam of land that the United States took from them. Possibly, the Chamorro Land Trust includes some land that was not taken by the United States, but, if that is so, that cannot be discerned from the present record. Given the state of the record, this court rejects the United States' contention that the court should now determine as a matter of law that Guam is violating the Fair Housing Act. The matter requires further exploration and an expansion of the record in this case.

Defendants Government of Guam and Administrative Director of the Chamorro Land Trust Commission have their own Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 35, which argues that the relief sought by the United States is unavailable, although they concede in their Reply brief that this court may award injunctive and declaratory relief. Defendant Chamorro LandTrust Commission joins in this motion.¹ See ECF No. 38. The court grants this motion and joinder in part, ruling that money damages are not available for the Fair Housing Act claims being asserted against Guam. The court denies the remainder of the motion and joinder.

III. BACKGROUND.

The history of Guam is fascinating and sometimes debated by scholars. This court need not, on the present motions, resolve those debates. The court instead sets forth a brief background only to put this case into context, not to settle any factual or historical debate.

There is no dispute that the indigenous people of Guam are the Chamorros. See Robert F. Rogers, Destiny's Landfall: A History of Guam 6-7 (Univ. of Haw. Press, 1995). Guam was first used by Western explorers as a food and water resource in 1521, when Ferdinand Magellan's three ships arrived on Guam. In 1564, a Spanish expedition claimed Guam for Spain. See William L. Wuerch & Dirk Anthony Ballendorf, Historical Dictionary of Guam and Micronesia 41-42 (The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1994).

Hundreds of years later, in the resolution of the Spanish-American War, Spain ceded Guam to the United States through Article II of the 1898 Treaty of Paris. See ECF No. 40-1,² Page 2 of 26 ("Spain cedes to the United States . . . the island of Guam in the Marianas or Landrones."). This included 41,859 acres of Spanish-owned property, or Spanish Crown lands, constituting approximately one-fourth of Guam. See Gov't of Guam ex rel. Guam Econ. Dev. Auth. v. United States, 179 F.3d 630, 632 (9^th Cir. 1999); Laura Thompson, Guam and its People (Greenwood Press, 1947), ECF No. 40-1, Page 11 of 26.

With the exception of the period from 1941 through 1944, when Japan occupied Guam, authority over Guam fell under the United States' Department of the Navy pursuant to Executive Order No. 108-A of December 23, 1898. See Mailloux v. Mailloux, 554 F.2d 976, 979 (9^th Cir. 1977), rev'd sub nom. on other grounds Chase Manhattan Bank (Nat. Ass'n) v. S. Acres Dev. Co., 434 U.S. 236 (1978); Gov't of Guam ex rel. Guam Econ. Dev. Auth., 179 F.3d at 632; https://www.nps.gov/articles/guamwwii.htm (indicating that Japan invaded Guam in December 1941);https://www.nps.gov/wapa/planyourvisit/gaan-point.htm (indicating that the United States retook Guam from Japan in July 1944). During the Japanese occupation of Guam in World War II, Japan freely confiscated property from the people of Guam, usually with no compensation. See Guam and its People 160, ECF No. 40-1, Page 12 of 26.

Before the Japanese occupation of Guam, the United States had a relatively small military presence on Guam, consisting almost entirely of a naval station staffed by fewer than 1,000 people. Robert K. Coote, Land Use Conditions and Land Problems on Guam 8 (1951), ECF No. 40-2, Page 14 of 20. After the United States retook Guam from the Japanese in 1944, the United States greatly increased its military presence on Guam, taking lands "subject to future compensation with little regard for ownership." Id.

On November 15, 1945, Congress passed the Guam Meritorious Claims Act, Public Law 79-224, 59 Stat. 582, authorizing the Secretary of the Navy, for a one-year period, to adjudicate and settle claims against the United States for real and/or personal property damage occurring on Guam during World War II. In 1994, Guam's representative to Congress, Robert A. Underwood, asked Congress to revisit Guam war reparations, characterizing the Guam Meritorious Claims Act as well-intentioned, but unsuccessful. Seehttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1994-08-09/html/CREC-1994-08-09-pt1-PgH84.htm.

Underwood stated that, during the one-year limitation period ending on December 1, 1946, language barriers and a misunderstanding of procedures caused many people to miss out on reparations. Id. At the time, "Guam was still in a state of disaster and people were still struggling to simply survive." https://www.guampedia.com/guam-world-war-ii-war-claims-legislative-history/; see also Senate Report 107-172 (107^th Congress, June 24, 2002) ("The Guam Meritorious Claims Act of November 15, 1945 authorized the Secretary of the Navy to appoint a claims commission to pay war claims not in excess of $5,000. The commission had to forward claims in excess of $5,000 to Congress, which had to approve them. The Act required claims to be filed within one year. The short time frame for filing claims may have prevented deserving claimants from receiving compensation."); House Report 106-815 (106^th Cong. Sept. 6, 2000), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-106hrpt815/html/CRPT-106hrpt815.htm, ("Unfortunately, that Act never fulfilled its intended purposes due to the limited time frame for claims and the preoccupation with the local population to recover from the war, resettle their homes, and rebuild their lives.").

On the same day it enacted the Guam Meritorious Claims Act, November 15, 1945, Congress also enacted the Guam LandTransfer Act, Public Law 79-225, 59 Stat. 584, authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to transfer lands the military no longer needed to the Government of Guam. The legislative history for that act noted that there had been extensive military acquisition of land in Guam, resulting in over 160 military and naval land holdings, which equaled "over half of the more valuable lands of the island." House Rep. No. 1136 (79^th Cong., 1^st Sess. Oct. 19. 1945); Sen. Rep. No. 596 (79^th Cong., 1^st Sess., Sept. 10, 1945). Both the House and Senate reports further state, "This increase in military and naval land requirements has created a problem in the rehabilitation of residents who have had to be moved from property acquired for governmental use and who, therefore, have to be resettled elsewhere on the island." House Rep. No. 1136; Sen. Rep. No. 596.

The reports note that much of the Spanish Crown lands were "unsuitable for military or naval installations but may be suitable for resettlement purposes." House Rep. No. 1136; Sen. Rep. No. 596. Recognizing that there was no law providing for the transfer of such...