As we approach the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision called Puerto Rico vs. Sanchez-Valle, we should consider what this landmark case tells us now about Puerto Rico’s relationship with the United States.
On June 9, 2016, the Supreme Court decided the case, but it began in 2008, when Luis Sanchez-Valle was charged with selling weapons illegally under Puerto Rico law — and also under federal law. He and his accomplice pled guilty in federal court. With the Puerto Rico case still hanging over him, he filed to have the charges from Puerto Rico dismissed. His lawyer argued that since the same crime was being considered, Puerto Rico’s case would be double jeopardy — being tried for the same case twice. That’s illegal.
The prosecution argued that Puerto Rico and the U.S. federal government are two separate entities, and people can be tried for the same crime by two different courts. O.J. Simpson, who was tried in both civil and criminal courts, is a well-known example. Another example is the police officers tried for the beating of Rodney King. They were acquitted in California state court, but later convicted in a federal court. Cases like this are possible under the dual sovereignty rule. Therefore, Puerto Rico’s lawyer said, Puerto Rico should still be able to try Sanchez-Valle.
California can, but Puerto Rico cannot
Sanchez-Valle was found guilty under U.S. law in a federal court, so he didn’t think he could be tried for the same crime in Puerto Rico. He was right, as the Supreme Court decided a decade ago. The judges said that “the States are separate sovereigns from the Federal Government (and from one another).” Puerto Rico, as a territory, is not on “equal footing” with the States, and does not have the“power, dignity and authority” of a state. Puerto Rico’s power, they decided, came from Congress, under the Territory Clause, so Puerto Rico didn’t fall under the dual sovereignty rule.
In other words, states have sovereignty, but territories do not. This decision was a shock to those who still believed that Puerto Rico “is not a mere territory.” It put an end to the idea that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was a nation with an equal relationship with the United States.
What does this say about the future?
Once those who believed in the sovereignty of Puerto Rico get over the shock, what does this decision tell us about the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States? Quite simply, Puerto Rico is still under the power of Congress, and needs a status change to end the colonial relationship. Taking specific issues to the courts will not result in Puerto Rico’s attaining equal benefits with the states, overcoming the effects of the Insular Cases, or gaining a full voice in American democracy.
“It is up to Congress to do what the President, Congress, and the courts failed to do in 1900,” says legal expert Howard Hills, “and exercise its power to determine what the political status choices are of each of the territories, starting with Puerto Rico.”
The Supreme Court’s decision not only clarified that Puerto Rico does not have the sovereignty that states have, but also stated that the courts don’t have the power to change that. They firmly pushed the issue back to Congress. Congress has the power “to make all needful rules and regulations,” as the Territory Clause says. That includes admitting Puerto Rico as a state.
Statehood will give Puerto Rico sovereignty, equal footing, and equal justice under the Constitution for the people of Puerto Rico. Make sure your representatives understand what is at stake.
No responses yet