Balzac v. Porto Rico
1922 U.S. LEXIS 2273, 42 S. Ct. 343, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The provisions of the U.S. Constitution do not apply in full to unincorporated U.S. territories; specifically, the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial is not a fundamental right that automatically extends to such territories. Granting U.S. citizenship to the inhabitants of an unincorporated territory does not, by itself, incorporate the territory into the Union.
Facts:
- Jesus M. Balzac was the editor of a daily newspaper in Arecibo, Porto Rico.
- In April 1918, Balzac published two articles that led to criminal libel charges against him.
- Under the Porto Rican Code of Criminal Procedure at the time, libel was classified as a misdemeanor.
- The governing law in Porto Rico provided for jury trials in felony cases but not in misdemeanor cases.
Procedural Posture:
- The District Attorney for Arecibo, Porto Rico filed two criminal libel informations against Jesus M. Balzac in the District Court for Arecibo, a court of first instance.
- At trial, Balzac's demand for a jury trial was denied by the court.
- The court found Balzac guilty in both cases and sentenced him to imprisonment.
- Balzac, as appellant, appealed the judgments to the Supreme Court of Porto Rico.
- The Supreme Court of Porto Rico, as appellee, affirmed both convictions.
- Balzac then brought the cases to the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to a trial by jury apply to a criminal defendant in Porto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the United States?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Taft
No. The Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial does not apply to criminal prosecutions in Porto Rico because it is an unincorporated territory where not all constitutional provisions are applicable. The Court reasoned that its precedents, notably the Insular Cases like Dorr v. United States, established a distinction between incorporated territories, where the Constitution applies fully, and unincorporated territories, where it does not. The critical question is whether Congress intended to incorporate Porto Rico into the Union. The Jones Act of 1917, which granted U.S. citizenship to Porto Ricans, did not constitute incorporation because it lacked an express declaration to that effect. In fact, the Jones Act's inclusion of a specific bill of rights for Porto Rico that conspicuously omitted the right to a jury trial is strong evidence that Congress did not intend for that right to apply. Citizenship status is personal and does not determine the constitutional status of the territory itself; it is the locality that is determinative.
Concurring - Justice Holmes
Justice Holmes concurred in the result without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'incorporation doctrine' established in the earlier Insular Cases, clarifying that the status of a territory is a matter of congressional intent. It establishes the significant precedent that granting U.S. citizenship to the inhabitants of a territory is not sufficient, on its own, to incorporate that territory into the Union. The decision sets a high bar for incorporation, requiring an 'express declaration' or an 'implication so strong as to exclude any other view,' thereby maintaining a legal framework where different constitutional rights apply to citizens depending on their geographical location within U.S. jurisdiction.
