Insular Cases - Criticism

Criticism

The decisions in the Insular Cases have not been without the dissenting voices of critics, among them distinguished scholars.

Former Chief Justice of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court José Trías Monge has stated that "The Insular Cases were based on premises that in today's world seem bizarre. "They," Trias Monge continues, "and the policies on which they rest, answer to the following notions:

• "democracy and colonialism are fully compatible;
• "there is nothing wrong when a democracy such as the United States engages in the business of governing other ;
• "people are not created equal, some races being superior to others;
• "it is the burden of the superior peoples, the white man's burden, to bring up others in their image, except to the extent that the nation which possesses them should in due time determine."

In Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980), the Court in a succinct per curiam order, applied Califano v. Torres, 435 U. S. 1 (1978), to hold that a lower level of aid to families with dependent children to residents of Puerto Rico did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because in U.S. territories Congress can discriminate against its citizens applying a rational basis standard. Justice Marshall issued a staunch dissent, again noting that Puerto Ricans are United States citizens and that the Insular Cases are indeed questionable.