American Samoan nationals who are plaintiffs in a suit against the federal government over the Citizenship Clause of the U.S. Constitution, have argued that the defendants have failed to “address the history and context of the Citizenship Clause” and reaffirmed that American Samoans are not “aliens” of the U.S. but are proud Americans.

The plaintiffs, who are lead by local resident Leneuoti Tuauau and include a Samoan organization in California, made the argument in a 30-page brief filed Wednesday in response to defendants arguments, which include asking the appeals court to reaffirm the local court’s decision which said that only Congress has the authority to grant citizenship to outlying territories — including American Samoa.

Defendants, which include the U.S. Department of State and the Secretary of State, also maintain that only Congress has the authority to grant U.S. citizenship to “outlying territories” such as American Samoa and this process allows each individual territory to decide for itself when it wishes for its inhabitants to receive birthright citizenship. (See Aug. 12 Samoa News edition for details).

The defendant's arguments are supported by the American Samoa Government and Congressman Faleomavaega Eni, who filed their joint appeal brief as amici curiae, or friends of the court. The pair also asked the court to be intervenors in the appeal process. (See Samoa News edition Aug. 26 for details).

ATTORNEY’S COMMENTS

Plaintiffs’ reply to the defendants “highlights the problems caused by a federal law that requires American Samoans to move to the States and naturalize as if they were aliens in order to be recognized as full U.S. citizens,” says Charles Alailima, local attorney for the plaintiffs, working with Neil Weare, President of ‘We the People Project’ and the  law firm of Arnold & Porter LLP, based in Washington D.C.

“American Samoan born people are not aliens of the United States. They are proud Americans and as Americans they should not have to be born into this second class national status and then be treated as aliens when they want to get full citizenship,” Alailima said Wednesday afternoon.

He argued that “historical record shows that our ancestors, represented by the Treaty Chiefs, believed in the early 1900s that U.S. citizenship was part of the agreement when they signed the Deeds of Cession. They fought for recognition as full U.S. citizens for decades. Today our case stands firmly for the equality of full US citizenship that our ancestors proudly placed under the sovereignty of the United States over 110 years ago.”

PLAINTIFFS REPLY

Attorneys for the plaintiffs contend that the defendants avoid the core issue in this case which is the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. “They disregard the canonical methods of constitutional interpretation, most notably by failing to address the history and context of the Citizenship Clause,” attorneys claims.

Defendants also failed to acknowledge, let alone address, the Supreme Court cases that interpreted the Clause in the years immediately after the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification in 1868.

Further, every accepted interpretative tool supports reading the plain text of the Citizenship Clause as guaranteeing birthright citizenship for Plaintiffs and all others born in the long-time U.S. Territory of American Samoa.

Rather than engage the meaning of the Citizenship Clause, defendants and their amici curiae rely on Congress’ separate powers to enact legislation concerning immigration and territorial administration, according to the attorneys.

“But neither power allows the political branches to redefine the scope of constitutional birthright citizenship. Nor do these powers strip the judiciary’s authority to clarify the meaning of this—or any other—constitutional provision,” the plaintiffs argued.

Even if the court were to analyze Plaintiffs’ citizenship claims under the ‘Insular Cases’ framework for the territorial application of other constitutional rights, birth in American Samoa would still confer a constitutional right of citizenship, they say.

“First, birthright citizenship is a fundamental right that automatically applies in American Samoa of its own force. Second, it would not be “impractical and anomalous” to apply that right to individuals born in American Samoa,” they say.

According to the brief, the “Fourteenth Amendment’s Framers” guaranteed that Americans born throughout the Nation—in its States, Territories, and the District of Columbia—would be recognized as citizens, and ensured that this birthright could never be revoked at the discretion of the political branches.

“In the decades that followed the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification, the Supreme Court confirmed this original understanding of the Citizenship Clause,” they said and reaffirmed that, “So long as American Samoa remains a part of the United States, the Citizenship Clause applies there and guarantees Plaintiffs birthright citizenship.”

In closing, plaintiffs request the court to reverse the judgment of the lower court.

Alailima said it’s expected that the next step in the case will be for the appeals court to schedule an oral argument, which likely will be held sometime early next year.